Representative Laurel Lee (R-FL) emphasized the need to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without dismantling it entirely in a recent House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing.
"This committee remains committed to restoring public trust in our federal law enforcement agencies, and a critical part of that involves holding open, informed conversations with experts like [the witnesses] to identify areas of proposed reform and change that we can then use to inform our work in collaboration with the intelligence community," Rep. Lee began, highlighting her previous work on the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America (RISA) Act, which The Floridian covered last February.
"This legislation was an important first step in our broader effort to rebuild confidence in the intelligence community and to keep America secure," Rep. Lee continued, adding that the abuses and violations of FISA standards clearly mean the system must be reformed "[FISA] is a vital part of our country's intelligence gathering capabilities. It is an essential component of what we do, and it is necessary that this conversation center on how we make it better, how we ensure accountability and transparency without dismantling it."
With that, the Florida Congresswoman spoke with Gene Schaerr, General Counsel of the Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability, about reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and making the approval process for FISA warrants "more adversarial."
Schaerr said that the RISA Act had "some very useful reforms" that could be built upon, such as issuing amicus curiae briefs.
"I would prefer to see that expanded somewhat so that there is a category of cases where the judges are expected to appoint a meeting, for example, cases that involve sensitive political issues or religious issues, like the FBI investigation of the Traditionalist Catholics down in Richmond last year or a couple of years ago. In those kinds of situations, you can identify categories of situations where an amicus, at least presumptively, should be appointed, and if an amicus is not going to be appointed, then the judge should have to explain why not," Schaerr concluded.
