Conservatives seek ‘major changes’ as House considers FISA reform

House Conservatives Demand Significant Reforms to Surveillance Law

House conservatives are taking a stand against the reauthorization of‍ the ⁤Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) unless major changes are made to limit the government’s ability to collect data from⁤ American citizens unintentionally.

The House ‍is preparing to vote on⁤ a bill that would renew‍ Section 702 of FISA, a ‌law that allows the government to gather communications from foreign individuals abroad⁣ in order to investigate potential ​national​ security threats. However, concerns have been raised about⁢ the law’s potential to also capture communications involving American ​citizens, leading ⁣some lawmakers⁢ to call ⁢for a ‌complete overhaul.

“Simply put, anonymous bureaucrats have abused this tool that⁢ was intended for support and surveillance as a threat⁣ to spy on American citizens,” said Rep. Bob​ Good (R-VA), chairman of ​the conservative House Freedom Caucus. “We need to find that balance between keeping the nation safe while protecting you from big​ government.”

The demand for reforms comes just ⁣after the release of the House’s proposed FISA Section 702 overhaul bill, which has been under negotiation for months. The 83-page bill combines elements from two previous proposals put forth by Republican lawmakers last year, ‍as ​disagreements among members hindered progress on revising the ‌surveillance law.

Last year, the⁢ House had two competing bills ‍suggesting updates to surveillance, one from the ‌House Judiciary Committee and one from the House Intelligence Committee. However, neither bill gained ‍enough ‍support to pass, leading Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to ​postpone the legislation until this year.

To buy more time‌ for negotiations, the speaker included a temporary extension of⁣ the current bill in the ​National Defense Authorization Act⁤ last ⁤year. However, this move faced ​opposition from House conservatives. The extension is set to expire on April 19.

The‌ latest draft of the bill does not include the strict warrant requirements proposed by the Judiciary Committee, which would have mandated⁤ probable cause warrants for all ⁣FISA queries involving U.S.‌ citizens. This omission has angered some conservatives. Instead, ‌the new bill aligns with the Intelligence Committee’s version, which limits the number of FBI personnel authorized to search the database for information.

It remains uncertain whether House leadership will allow a vote on an amendment that would introduce changes to the warrant requirement.

Rep. Good expressed​ support for the Judiciary Committee’s original proposal, emphasizing ​the need to “ensure that our‌ government cannot spy on its citizens without a warrant, or purchase data that would⁤ otherwise require a warrant.”

Members of the Freedom Caucus are going even further, demanding that House leaders consider amendments to the FISA‍ reauthorization⁣ bill that include‌ warrant requirements. Some officials in the Biden administration have argued against such requirements, claiming⁤ they could hinder law enforcement’s ability to​ conduct⁢ surveillance.

Conservatives counter these claims by asserting‌ that warrant requirements would protect the civil⁤ rights of American citizens.

“We should be‍ using the Judiciary bill as the base text. But at this point, as weak as the base text is,​ it can be made right if we have all the relevant questions asked,” said Rep. ​Warren Davidson (R-OH). “And those ​are: Do you ‍need a ‍warrant? Can the government buy data that they would otherwise have to get a warrant for? Are we going to tolerate expanding this?”

The House Rules Committee ‍has scheduled the FISA bill for consideration during its​ Wednesday meeting, which ‌means it could potentially be brought to the floor for a vote as early as ⁢Thursday or Friday. However, it remains unclear whether Republicans will move forward with the bill this week.

Unless significant changes are made, several⁣ conservatives are threatening to withhold their support, which could jeopardize the bill’s final passage.

CLICK⁢ HERE‌ TO READ ​MORE FROM THE​ WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Why ⁤do civil liberties advocates argue ‍that Section 702 violates Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights ‌and ⁤principles of a free ⁤and democratic society

Ta collected under ⁤Section 702. It also​ includes additional privacy protections, such as⁤ requiring the‍ government to obtain a warrant before ​accessing the content of Americans’ communications that are incidentally collected.

However, House conservatives argue that these changes‌ are not sufficient to address their ⁤concerns. They believe that more significant reforms are necessary to protect ‌the privacy rights of American ‌citizens. ‌One of their major demands is for ​the complete elimination⁢ of the incidental collection of ‍Americans’ communications under Section 702.

Another concern raised ⁤by conservatives⁣ is ⁢the lack of transparency and accountability in ⁣the surveillance process. They argue that ​there needs to be more oversight⁤ and ‌reporting requirements to ensure that the government is not ‍abusing its surveillance powers. They also want to narrow the scope of surveillance to only‌ target ⁢individuals ⁢who pose a genuine threat to national security.

House conservatives are not the only ones calling for reforms to the⁢ surveillance law.‍ Civil liberties‍ advocates and privacy activists have long criticized Section 702‍ for⁤ its potential to violate Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. ‌They argue that‌ the law allows for mass surveillance without individualized suspicion, which goes against the principles⁣ of ‍a free and democratic society.

The debate over the reauthorization of Section 702​ is likely to continue ​in the coming weeks. The House is scheduled to vote on the bill before it expires ⁢on April ⁢19. Whether significant reforms will be ⁣included in the final ⁤legislation remains to⁤ be seen, as lawmakers from both sides ⁢of the aisle continue to ⁣negotiate and compromise.

In ‌the end, the outcome of this debate will have far-reaching ⁣implications for the balance between national security and individual privacy in the United States. It ⁣is crucial that ⁢lawmakers⁤ carefully consider the concerns raised‍ by House conservatives and other advocates for privacy rights. Only by striking a fair and reasonable balance ⁣can the government effectively protect national security without infringing upon the privacy rights of its citizens.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases