ASHINGTON, Sept. 27 ・After the terrorist attacks, there was a bipartisan rush to provide the administration with emergency aid money, new military authority and financial relief for the airlines. But Congress is taking a second look ・and a third and a fourth ・at the administration's proposals for new law enforcement powers to fight terrorism.

Asked about the strikingly different response, Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader and a conservative Republican, said this week:

"This is a tougher area for us to look at than areas that involve money. This is about how we equip our anti-espionage, counterterrorism agencies with the tools they want while we still preserve the most fundamental thing, which is the civil liberties of the American people."

In fact, the concerns over civil liberties ・and the desire to keep careful checks on the government ・run deep on Capitol Hill, although they are expressed with the utmost care these days, given the magnitude of the losses and the anger at the terrorists who caused them.

Everyone begins their remarks by vowing that law enforcement authorities should be given the tools they need. But there are questions and second thoughts that the balance between civil liberties and national security in the administration's proposal is not quite right.

And those concerns are bipartisan, voiced by those on both the left and the right.

The result is that legislation that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked Congress to pass in a matter of days last week is now the subject of intense negotiations among Democrats, Republicans and the administration. Some provisions will apparently be dropped, others substantially revised.

The Bush administration's proposal seeks more authority to detain suspected terrorists and those suspected of aiding and supporting them; broader powers to track communications over telephones and computers, and greater powers to seize assets and attack the "financial infrastructure" of suspected terrorist organizations.

Lawmakers say they hope to move legislation through the House Judiciary Committee next week, at the least ・still a very fast pace, by Congressional standards ・and give the administration major new enforcement powers very soon. But they also say it is critical to reach a broad consensus first.

"I'm not going to bring a bill to the floor that's going to be attacked by the left and the right," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, "because it's not going to go anywhere."

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, is worried about the administration's proposal to allow the indefinite detention of immigrants if they are deemed to be threats to national security.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, shares those objections.

Representative Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, wants to ensure that, if the government gets the new surveillance powers proposed, there are also new remedies against those in the government who release "inappropriate, personal" information.

At a hearing this week, Mr. Frank recalled the lengthy wiretapping of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Director J. Edgar Hoover.

Mr. Armey voiced a similar concern but reached back to a different precedent, the gathering of F.B.I. files on Republican officials by an aide in the Clinton White House.

"There are a lot of members that are acutely aware of the fact that the agencies don't always exercise due diligence in the way they handle information," Mr. Armey said. "I draw my case by raw F.B.I. files apparently being turned over to political operatives at a moment's notice, and that sticks in a lot of people's craw in terms of the security of who you are in your life and what right the government has to share that information."

Representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican of Georgia, has been one of the House Judiciary Committee's most vocal critics of the administration's legislation. Mr. Barr argues that some provisions in the proposal ・for example, tougher new money laundering statutes to deal with terrorist organizations ・are areas of consensus and could be passed very quickly. But others, he says, need careful scrutiny, like allowing a wider use of material obtained in grand juries.

Representative Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat from California, declared at the House committee's hearing this week that while many lawmakers had "bent over backwards" to rally behind the administration, "we have to draw the line" when it comes to civil liberties.

Ms. Waters said she feared that the definition of terrorism in the bill was too wide. She concluded, "I find myself agreeing with Mr. Barr, and that is very unusual."

Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, was pleased with the decision by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is the panel's chairman, to postpone action on the bill until next week.

"The first victory was the idea that we're actually going to deliberate and take some time before we report a bill," Mr. Scott said.

He noted that it was not clear whether some of what the administration wanted was constitutional.

Some legislative staff members say the indefinite detention of immigrants will clearly be changed in the final bill. Other provisions are also undergoing substantial rewriting.

Grover Norquist, the influential conservative strategist, said his regular Wednesday meeting of advocates heard this week from Mr. Barr on civil liberties. Mr. Norquist said he was pleased that the process had slowed.

"Things are slowed down now to the point where there's an honest, serious discussion about what points are useful and what are not," Mr. Norquist said.

"I'm very encouraged that the civil liberties left has not taken the position that the administration doesn't need any additional powers," he said, "and I haven't heard anything from the establishment that whatever additional powers you want to give the government are all right with me."

The buzzword on Capitol Hill is balance.