Perhaps continued commentary on the USA PATRIOT Act will seem like a broken record, but the fact is that this statute enacted in October of 2001 is still very much with us. There continues to be activity from both the Administration and within Congress to expand the already massive provisions of this statute, and broaden an already widespread Congressional authorization for use of surveillance, investigative, arrest, and prosecution authorities for federal law enforcement agencies.

There are several recent efforts which bear mentioning. Two will be noted here. A description of others will come at a date in the very near future.

One is a resolution introduced by Rep. James Sesenbrenner (R. WI), HR 3179. It is similar in approach to some sections of the much maligned proposed statute, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act ("PATRIOT Act II"). Public reaction to that proposed statute was so strong that the Administration has not submitted it to Congress as a single package. However, there were predictions by many observers including this one, that the Administration or its supporters in Congress will attempt to enact some sections or areas of it, on a piecemeal basis.

One of the chief aspects of HR 3179 is increased enforcement powers for the use of national security letters by the FBI. These national security letters are special means by which the FBI can obtain business records from a range of businesses. Through a national security letter, the FBI can obtain this information without a court order and without court oversight. The information is to be obtained in secret. The list of information areas subject to national security letters is limited, but it does seem to be growing.

Apparently there is some belief that enforcement of national security letters need enhancement. HR 3179 will provide for criminal penalties for failure to comply with a national security letter. There will also be criminal penalties for revealing any information to anyone about the material sought by the FBI in a national security letter or the content of a national security letter.

This expansion of both the use of and enforcement of national security letters was part of "PATRIOT Act II." It is quite obvious that the Administration and its supporters in Congress have no intention of waiting until the appropriate time to introduce that statute in its entirety. A major piece of it would be enacted if this resolution passes.

Another part of the resolution and another part of "PATRIOT Act II" would restrict the ability of federal trial judges to decide how to treat classified information submitted by the government as evidence in criminal trials. At present, the judge can decide whether to review the information or a summary of it, in open court or in closed chambers. That would change under HR 3179. The trial court would not have discretion in how to review classified government evidence--the court will be required to review the evidence in closed chambers. This also means that usually, the defense will not have an opportunity to view or respond to the evidence ahead of time, until the court decides whether the evidence will be permitted to be used in the trial and if so, to what extent.

This is another level of both secrecy and restriction on court authority and oversight that is a common theme in the PATRIOT Act and continues to be a common theme throughout the Administration's law enforcement efforts on the "war on terrorism." With increased secrecy and restricted judicial oversight also comes the potential for serious abuses of government power. This does not seem to be of interest to the Administration--or perhaps it is. Perhaps the Administration is interested in such broad use of government power without a care to the seriousness of the danger for abuse.

Another aspect of HR 3179 would be the government's ability to use intelligence surveillance information in civil cases, which would include immigration cases like deportation and removal proceedings. Although the potential result of those proceedings is quite severe, they are not treated by the law as criminal cases, but as civil cases. And so, certain procedural or constitutional safeguards do not necessarily apply.

With HR 3179, information from intelligence surveillance could be used in these cases without the ability of the person involved to challenge the information. Because the information might have been obtained through means that could provide the basis for a constitutional challenge--such as through a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court--allowing the person involved to challenge the information would be an essential safeguard in ensuring that the information is not constitutionally suspect. A trial judge considering this challenge would review the information in closed chambers rather than in an open hearing, but the challenge would still be available. Without the ability to make that sort of challenge, deportation of individuals could occur based on secret evidence which the person might not have been able to review let alone challenge in open court. Once again--secrecy, lack of judicial oversight, increase in government power, decrease in individual rights. All in the name of the war on terrorism.

All of that is just HR 3179. There is another resolution under consideration in Congress, HR 3722, introduced by Rep David Rohrbacher (R-CA). Among the provisions of HR 3179 would be a requirement that hospitals and other health care providers who provide health care to undocumented immigrants, report these undocumented persons to the Department of Homeland Security (the former INS is now a department in DHS).

Health care providers would be required to verify the immigration status of all uninsured patients seeking treatment in emergency rooms. The health care providers would be required to transmit to DHS information including patients' financial data, identity of employer, and biometric information available.

Also, HR 3722 would narrow the type of emergency room services available to undocumented persons. Beyond this, an undocumented worker's inability to pay for medical services could be a basis for deportation (removal) from the United States.

There is much wrong with such provisions, but unfortunately it is an expression of the anti-immigration sentiment that seems to have taken hold of the country since September 11. What is more distressing is that in this land of abundance, there could very well be support for such legislation.

These two bills, HR 3179 and HR 3722, are additional examples of how far the trends which have been put in motion since September 11 are moving. And these trends continue to move, through our legislatures, through the Administration, through our media and our culture. Throwing immigrants out of the country who cannot pay for emergency medical care has nothing to do with national security. Throwing immigrants out of the country on secret, classified, or unchallengeable evidence has very little to do with whether we are "safe."

These trends need to be stopped and reversed. If these bills are enacted and this sort of activity continues, the end will not nearly be in sight.

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.