It is becoming a campaign theme for President George W. Bush: "renew" the USA PATRIOT Act. In his State of the Union Address, at a speech on the first anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, and in other stump speeches around the country, Bush has been urging Congress to "renew" the PATRIOT Act. His speeches might give the impression that somehow the PATRIOT Act is in trouble and that Congress needs to rescue it before it expires. But Bush is wrong on two counts: first, the PATRIOT Act does not have to be "renewed" to stay in effect and second, even if that were necessary it should not be "renewed."

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed on October 25, 2001 and signed into law the next day by President Bush, is one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress on crime, banking, immigration, intelligence, sentencing, border security, and information exchange. It literally rewrites rules or practices that have existed for more than 25 years, since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, on sharing "foreign intelligence information" between government agencies. It establishes new standards or descriptions on detention of aliens, surveillance of citizens, obtaining personal information, investigation into banking and consumer records, monitoring of foreign students, expansion of the definitions of the federal crime of terrorism, and creating the new crime of domestic terrorism.

The PATRIOT Act's assault on civil liberties is indisputable. It clearly is a step towards increased surveillance, investigation, information sharing, detention, arrest, and action by federal agencies, in the name of the war on terrorism. It is not by accident that reaction to the statute has led, among other things, to resolutions critical of the PATRIOT Act to be approved in more than 250 municipalities around the country, from large cities of New York, Chicago, Baltimore, and elsewhere to small towns in the Midwest and Southwest, and West Coast.

That reaction to the PATRIOT Act could be noticed even in Congress in the short space of time, only about 40 days, between the Act's submission and its approval. At that time, concerns were raised on its long term scope and effect. As a compromise, the White House--which did not wish any sunset or expiration date--allowed for certain provisions to sunset in 2005 (a four-year sunset provision, from the 2001 approval of the Act). Acceptance of that compromise was a major factor for Congressional approval of the statute.

However, these "sunset" provisions affect only two Titles of the PATRIOT Act. Certain provisions of Title II, among the most troublesome of the PATRIOT Act titles, are designed automatically to sunset on December 31, 2005. This Title contains most of the new surveillance, search, information sharing, and investigation, provisions of the Act. Those who express concern about the PATRIOT Act invariably are speaking about Title II.

Among these 2005 sunset provisions in Title II are expanded search and seizure powers for federal agencies under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and greatly increased authority for telephone and computer investigation. Yet, Title II will not entirely sunset. Many Title II provisions do not sunset at all, such as expanded federal agency sharing of otherwise secret grand jury testimony dealing with "foreign intelligence" matters and "single jurisdiction" search warrants allowing a search warrant from a single federal court to apply, literally, throughout the country in a given investigation.

The only other "sunset" provision in the PATRIOT Act is in Title III, an extremely complex Title involving federal agency investigation into bank accounts and records linked to money laundering or financing of terrorist organizations. Title III effectively has rewritten federal banking law involving account reporting, account information, and federal investigation of banking and account records. Numerous regulations directed by Title III, affecting all banks in the country, were issued by the Treasury Department in 2002 and 2003.

Title III provisions and comparable provisions in other federal statutes have so far been used with considerable success to prosecute those suspected of sending money overseas to terrorist groups or providing financial support for such groups. But it also allows for unprecedented federal secret investigative authority into banking and financial records of all types.

The Title III "sunset" provision allows for the entire Title III to be invalidated by Congress, by October 1, 2005. This would have to happen by joint Congressional resolution. If the deadline is missed, presumably Congress would still have authority to invalidate Title III, but the resolution supposedly would not be passed at least until that date.

The rest of the USA PATRIOT Act is permanent. It does not have to be "renewed."

When the PATRIOT Act was passed, many observers suggested that the White House accepted the compromise grudgingly and continued to desire a PATRIOT Act with no sunset clauses. Those observers and others--including this writer--have predicted that as the sunset dates neared, the Administration especially the White House and Justice Department, would start beating the drum about getting Congress to remove those sunset provisions. (In fact, one attempt to do so in 2003 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), was turned back in the Senate).

Sooner than expected, the Administration has been urging "renewal" of the PATRIOT Act. Congress and the American people should reject that invitation. The PATRIOT Act is a statute of extreme and far reaching effects. The sunset provisions were agreed to by Congress, for a reason. The continuing public concern about the USA PATRIOT Act, has not abated in the three years since it was passed. Continued invocation of the statute by the Administration and its use by the Justice Department has not brought greater public confidence on the war on terrorism. Not only should the statute not be "renewed," its sunset provisions must be honored.

It bears mentioning that according to the Justice Department, some of the provisions that supposedly granted the greatest search and seizure authority--such as Section 215 of Title II--have not yet been used. If that is so, there is no need to continue with some of the more difficult provisions of Title II. In fact, as this writer and others have argued, aside from information sharing restrictions between the FBI and CIA, federal agencies were not hobbled in their investigation of terrorism before the PATRIOT Act was passed. Allowing the Title II provisions to sunset as designed at the end of 2005 will hardly bring federal anti-terrorism activity to a halt.

Also, Title III has effects far beyond the war on terrorism. Much of Title III is not even restricted to anti-terrorism investigations. It was appropriate for Congress to allow for review and possible invalidation of Title III by October, 2005. That should still happen. In that respect, much more needs to be heard from the banking lobby, since financial institutions are the most directly affected by this complex and imposing Title and its myriad regulations.

The USA PATRIOT Act does not have to be "renewed." Some parts of Title II are to sunset at the end of 2005. That should be allowed to happen. The entire Title III can be invalidated by joint resolution by the October 1, 2005 deadline. That should happen as well. To generate the resistance to the Administration's increasing demands that Congress, do otherwise, Congress needs to hear from the American people.

C. William Michaels is an attorney in Baltimore, Maryland and the author of "No Greater Threat: America After September 11 and the Rise of a National Security State" (Algora, 2002). "No Greater Threat" is the only book containing a review of the entire USA PATRIOT Act. For more information on the book and author, contact www.nogreaterthreat.com.