The Utah Republican has had discussions with Vice President Dick Cheney, trying to resolve a standoff between the White House and the Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., over Specter's bill seeking to clarify the legality of warrantless electronic surveillance authorized by President Bush after Sept. 11, 2001.

"All I can say is that the White House has been willing, I think, to meet with Senator Specter and I hopefully have been of some help in facilitating that," Hatch said in an interview Friday.

Whether Hatch's effort will bear fruit remains to be seen.

Hatch, who is on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, had conversations with both Cheney and Specter on Thursday, and a spokeswoman for Cheney said the vice president spoke with Specter directly.

"I presume after our chats yesterday that both sides will try to get together and resolve this," Hatch said. "I think it's in the best interest of everyone because there are still some people who are concerned with the relationship between the Senate and House and the White House."

The commitment to work together comes at the end of a week of rocky relations between Specter and the White House.

At a hearing Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee was poised to vote on whether to subpoena telephone company executives to testify about data collection by the National Security Administration that reportedly swept up data from telephone calls by millions of Americans.

Specter agreed to postpone a vote after Hatch assured him he could convince the Bush administration to work out an agreement on Specter's bill and allow the surveillance program to be reviewed by a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs intelligence gathering.

"Senator Hatch spoke confidently . . . about getting administration acceptance of the pending legislation, which I think would be a big advance," Specter said.

The postponement to accommodate Cheney did not sit well with Democrats, who saw the committee caving in to the wishes of the White House - an assertion that made Specter bristle.

"Why don't we just recess for the rest of the year . . . and just simply say: 'We'll have no more hearings and Vice President Cheney will just tell the nation what laws we'll have,' '' Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., sarcastically suggested. "It would destroy even the few remaining vestiges of a real check-and-balance democracy, but that's basically what we're saying."

Hatch said he sees little point in calling the phone executives because Bush has said any information related to the program is classified and could not be disclosed.

Since Specter introduced his legislation in March subjecting the program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court in March, the Bush administration has consistently refused to offer input or take a position on the legislation, frustrating the chairman.

Specter sent the vice president a pointed letter Wednesday, stating that the Bush administration's position "denigrates the constitutional authority and responsibility of the Congress" and that he hoped to resolve the matter "without the necessity of a constitutional confrontation between Congress and the president."

Cheney responded Thursday, stating that he is confident that the administration and senators "can find the way forward to enactment of legislation that would strengthen the ability of the government to protect Americans against terrorists while continuing to protect the rights of Americans."

"The administration has said, 'We're going to continue to work with members,' '' said Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's spokeswoman. "We're going to work with members in good faith and listen to their ideas, and that includes Senator Specter . . . and other senators."

Hatch, who defends the surveillance program but also supports Specter's bill, said the White House insists the legislation not undermine the president's constitutional authority. At the same time, he said, some form of congressional oversight is needed, and the FISA law passed 30 years ago needs to be updated so it works in a modern era.

"I don't think this rises to the constitutional-crisis level," Hatch said. "It certainly has risen to the level of irritation, and we all understand there can be differences between the administration and the Congress from time to time."