Balance security, liberty.

Byline: The Register-Guard

When a stunned Congress reacted to the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, by hurriedly passing the USA Patriot Act, many lawmakers supported the vast array of new federal investigative powers only on the condition that they be made temporary.

Given that few members of Congress had even read the entire bill, much less seriously considered its potentially corrosive effects on civil rights, the sunset provisions were a prudent move.

Now it seems President Bush wants to change the rules, and he's not willing to wait until 2005 when many of the law's key sections are set to expire. Nor does he think there's any need for lawmakers to evaluate the law's effectiveness or consequences. "Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation," Bush told Congress in his State of the Union last month. "You need to renew the Patriot Act."

That comment was greeted by spontaneous applause. But so was Bush's mention that "key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" - an indication of the growing conviction among both Democrats and Republicans that the act's dramatic expansions of government power should be carefully reassessed and a better balance restored between security and liberty.

Bush seems strangely oblivious to the mood in Congress, despite its blunt rejection last year of his bid to expand the Patriot Act.

Bipartisan support is growing for legislation that would address problems with the Patriot Act. The Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would give courts more power to regulate federal investigative efforts. Among other things, it would regulate the ability of law enforcement to conduct "sneak-and-peak" activities and limit the definition of domestic terrorism so that it does not include all violations of federal or state criminal laws.

The Safety and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act, introduced last fall by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., would also add judicial oversight to counterbalance the FBI's new powers. It would also address other troublesome Patriot Act provisions, while leaving intact those powers that have proven helpful to investigators but that have not imposed unduly on civil liberties.

The White House's response to these reasonable, moderate proposals is revealing. Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that the president would veto the SAFE Act, arguing without justification that it would "make it more difficult" to catch terrorists.

The administration also seems clueless about the growing concern of Americans that the Patriot Act threatens fundamental civil rights and due-process protections. Over the past two years, more than 250 municipalities, counties and states encompassing nearly 50 million people have approved resolutions urging Patriot Act reforms.

Among the most recent communities to approve such a measure is New York City, which understands better than any other the importance of fighting terror. The fact that New Yorkers see the need for a vigorous debate about what powers investigators truly need and what rights need to be protected should send a powerful message to the White House.