By Noelle Straub and J.P. Cassidy

The Bush administration's anti-terrorism bill, which would expand the powers of law enforcement agencies, has run into opposition from congressional liberals and conservatives who fear it would erode civil liberties.

Democrats and libertarians seek to strip it of provisions they consider offensive, trusting that the new god of bipartisanship will protect them from political attacks.

Few expect a contentious debate when the bill hits the floor, since that would shatter the façade of unity, but Democrats, along with Republicans from the party's libertarian wing, think they have the leverage to force significant revisions at the committee level.

In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is hammering out the differences between his counterterrorism proposals and that of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who testified before the committee Tuesday.

At a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Monday, Ashcroft faced a barrage of harsh questioning, not just from Democrats, but from a number of Republicans who think the bill expands police power far beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism.

At least six Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee want to see major elements of the bill eliminated or seriously revised.

Republican Reps. Bob Barr (Ga.), Chris Cannon (Utah), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Darrell Issa (Calif.), along with Democrat Bobby Scott (Va.), wrote a letter to Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (Wis.) saying that 10 important sections of the bill ' dealing with, among other things, asset seizure, secret evidence, searches conducted without notification, and indefinite detention of noncitizens ' were fundamentally flawed, and another 10 were unacceptable as written.

We see many provisions in the president's proposal that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, Barr said. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) expressed some of the same concerns.

In addition, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who chaired Judiciary until this year, vigorously opposes the expansion of police authority to seize assets before a trial. A spokesman for Hyde said he is concerned that the bill could undermine the reforms he has fought for over the last eight years.

Like the other Democrats on his committee, ranking House member John Conyers (Mich.) had pointed comments.

[We are] troubled about the fact that the court has already, for example, told us that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, Conyers said. Permitting information for illegal wiretaps performed abroad against United States citizens to be used in the federal courts as the administration proposes is ' well, some have said it's unconstitutional on its face.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes the World Trade Center, said the bill is a laundry list of powers law enforcement agencies want.

The committee was scheduled to mark up the bill Tuesday, but after the contentious hearing, Sensenbrenner postponed it for a week, since the Senate isn't rushing the bill.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ashcroft each drafted his own anti-terrorism proposal and are negotiating a consensus bill that will be marked up in committee.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said that, while the Ashcroft proposal is still a moving target, there has been pretty wide consensus on protecting civil liberties.

Do I think that there will be a run on civil liberties here? The answer is, I think not, but I'm not willing to bet the farm on it. And even if there is, I think there's enough consensus among Democrats and Republicans not to let that happen.

Biden said Ashcroft called him at home before publicly announcing an anti-terrorism package. And he said, and I'm paraphrasing, 'Joe, I need your help on this legislation. It's essentially the legislation you wrote in 1994,' and he didn't say it, but I was almost going to kid him, that he voted against it.

However, Biden noted that the bill was substantially changed as it migrated from the Justice department to the White House.

Leahy objected to an amendment containing several anti-terrorism measures that Judiciary ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) attached to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill passed by voice vote two days after the attacks.

At a press conference Friday, Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) emphasized protecting civil liberties.

We would hand the ultimate victory to the terrorists if they succeeded in the goal of making America like them, and surrendering our basic liberties and freedoms, Graham said.

Sensenbrenner said, if they didn't move quickly, Hastert might offer his own bill and ignore the committee's work. Hastert has no such plans, spokesman John Feehery said.

The possibility of a substitute bill in the House and the overwhelming pressure to vote for whatever ends up on the floor are the two major factors favoring proponents of the bill.