A day after the US attorney general and FBI director urged Congress to renew all provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, some lawmakers will introduce a counter-measure aimed at toning down what civil libertarians see as the most egregious aspects of the controversial legislation.

Backed by some of the nation’s most prominent civil rights organizations, the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act is seen by the burgeoning anti-Patriot Act movement as a legislative antidote to some of law enforcement’s expanded powers in the post-September 11th United States. At a press conference yesterday, a handful of Senators announced their intention to reintroduce the bill, which had failed to gain traction during last year’s Congress.

With key measures of the Patriot Act set to expire this year, and the Bush administration pushing hard for their renewal, critics and proponents of the sweeping legislation are gearing up for a political battle over the balance between national security and individual privacy and liberty.

In fact, the SAFE Act’s introduction is timed to complement Senate hearings held yesterday, in which lawmakers pressed Bush administration officials on the usefulness of the Patriot Act, passed hastily in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Patriot Act is a necessary anti-terrorism tool and urged lawmakers to extend the provisions set to expire, or "sunset," at year’s end.

Among the sections of the law up for renewal or cessation are those that allow the FBI to gain search warrants, wiretapping and surveillance approval – and even the authority to seize personal records – from secret courts without having to show probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. Under the current provisions, federal agents merely need to tell a judge that the investigation is related to a terrorism investigation.

Many of these provisions have come under intense scrutiny from citizens groups and government watchdogs because of their broad scope, potential for abuse and secretive nature.

While the government has occasionally offered statistics revealing how many times various kinds of searches have been employed, the Bush administration has not been forthcoming with specific information about how the Justice Department has employed the tools granted by the Patriot Act. Additionally, the ACLU, which is itching to test the provisions’ constitutionality in court, has complained that the clandestine nature of the searches and the "gag orders" that accompany them make it difficult to identify people whose rights law enforcement personnel may have violated under the Act.

The civil rights organization did, however, manage to challenge one of the provisions in court last year, when an owner of an internet service provider came forward after being served with a "national security letter" by the FBI. National security letters are internally issued by the FBI without the consent of a court, allowing the investigators to obtain information from communications firms and financial and credit institutions.

As a result of that lawsuit, which itself was shrouded in secrecy due to the gag order accompanying the national security letter, a US district court struck down part of that provision in September, citing dual constitutional grounds. Judge Victor Marreo ruled that the national security letters themselves violate the US Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the gag order violates the right to free speech.

Such gag orders associated with national security letters, which forbid the recipient from telling anyone about the search under penalty of law, also accompany other types of warrants granted under the Patriot Act. Additionally, the measures lack clear mechanisms for recipients to challenge the scope of the search. But Judge Morreo’s finding only applied to the section of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to issuing national security letters to communications firms.

At the Senate hearing yesterday, Gonzales earned praises from critics of the Patriot Act when he said he would be willing to negotiate over those clauses to possibly allow recipients to contact legal counsel and challenge the searches in court.

Nevertheless, Gonzales’ conciliatory tone -- which many lawmakers said was refreshing after dealing with former attorney general John Ashcroft -- belied the content of his statements, which were staunchly defensive of all the Patriot Act’s provisions. Though he acknowledged critics of the act and promised to respect and work with them, he did not stray from the Bush administration’s assertions that all of the provisions, even those under fire from civil rights groups, are constitutionally compliant and necessary for national security.

Meanwhile, grassroots opposition to the Patriot Act has been growing. Campaigns in over 370 localities have successfully pushed town and city resolutions condemning various aspects of the Patriot Act and reaffirming a commitment to civil liberties. Some of the resolutions go so far as to discourage local law enforcement agents from using provisions granted under the Patriot Act. And just days ago, Montana became the fifth state to pass an anti-Patriot Act resolution.

Yet even as the Bush administration is put on the defensive over its sweeping 2001 anti-terror package, it is seeking to increase its powers. FBI Director Mueller, who also spoke at Tuesday’s hearing, told lawmakers the FBI needs additional authority to gather information without judicial oversight. Specifically, he mentioned "administrative subpoenas," which some lawmakers pushed during the last Congressional session as part of the Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004.

"Administrative subpoenas," as they were described in the 2004 Act, would allow the FBI agents to bypass even the few judicial safeguards still remaining when they obtain records or testimony from "third party holders" such as libraries, bookstores, or doctors’ offices. These special directives could also be accompanied gag orders preventing people subjected to searches from notifying even a lawyer of their predicament.

But if supporters of the SAFE Act have their way, the government’s powers will be curtailed instead of expanded.

For instance, the legislation would limit the government’s ability to conduct "roving wiretaps" by requiring that they be attached either to a specific suspect or a given location. It would also limit the use of "sneak and peek," searches in which notice of a investigation is delayed, to situations in which notifying the subject of the search would endanger life or limb or would severely hamper the investigation. Additionally, the SAFE Act would prevent the FBI from using national security letters to obtain library records.

The SAFE Act has the unusual backing of a broad sampling of the mainstream political spectrum, including the American Conservative Union, as well as progressives and libertarians united in their opposition to the Patriot Act’s harshest elements.

"This critical legislation is introduced as bipartisan opposition to some of the worst Patriot Act provisions," said Gregory T. Nojeim, a spokesperson for the ACLU, in a statement about the SAFE Act. "As the Senate and House Judiciary committees hold hearings to examine what liberties we’ve lost since 9/11, lawmakers should remember that this remedy is at hand."