---

Guarding liberties
...H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand the scope of the Patriot Act even before it is clear all the current Patriot Act powers are necessary and used appropriately. Despite the unanswered concern, key congressional leaders resorted to stealth late last year in attaching a measure to the 2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that drastically increased the FBI's power by allowing the agency to demand records from car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents and other businesses without judge or grand jury approval. Neither House nor Senate debated it; the real action took place behind closed doors.

This also seems to be happening with H.R. 3179 — the Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003. House leaders planned to rush the bill to the floor for approval without any real debate until a ruckus was raised by a coalition ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Free Congress Foundation and the American Conservative Union. In an attempt to skirt such opposition, there was talk of adding H.R. 3179 to the House intelligence bill, but to no avail. The intelligence bill passed the House without H.R. 3179.

One part of H.R. 3179 — the so-called "lone wolf" expansion of intelligence wiretaps — is attached to the Senate bill, but is opposed by conservatives like former Georgia representative and National Rifle Association board member Bob Barr and Jane Harmon, ranking Democratic on the House Intelligence Committee. Passage of the Senate version would necessitate a conference debate on the "lone wolf" issue — opening up the package of Patriot Act expansions in H.R. 3179. Again, this closed-door deliberation would shut the public out of voicing any concerns. In short, this dangerous bill isn't dead yet.

Even the most cursory examination reveals H.R. 3179 would expand Patriot Act powers without any built-in accountability and oversight. One of its most troubling provisions involves new powers for searches ordered by National Security Letters. These can be used to demand access to individual or business records even absent a showing of individual suspicion. There is no way either the target of the investigation or those on whom the letters are served can challenge them as too broad. The statute, in fact, makes it a crime for a recipient to raise alarms in the press, or even to the Justice Department's inspector general or the relevant congressional committees that should exercise oversight. ...