Overview

Title

An Act To reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

ELI5 AI

The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act is like a rulebook that makes sure the people who watch over and keep us safe, like the FBI, follow stricter rules when checking on people's information, so they don't just look for trouble without a good reason. It also makes sure they're honest, by having big penalties if they don't follow these rules and keeping everything clear so nobody cheats or keeps secrets.

Summary AI

H.R. 7888, titled the “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act,” aims to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The bill seeks to implement various reforms, including stricter procedures for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) queries involving US persons, especially ensuring that such queries are not solely for finding evidence of crimes. It mandates regular audits, new privacy protections, and increased oversight on intelligence activities, while also emphasizing accountability by introducing penalties for unauthorized disclosures and requiring transparency in surveillance court applications. Additionally, the bill establishes a commission to continue reviewing and recommending reforms to surveillance laws.

Published

2024-04-15
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Placed on Calendar Senate
Date: 2024-04-15
Package ID: BILLS-118hr7888pcs

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
27
Words:
17,095
Pages:
92
Sentences:
295

Language

Nouns: 4,812
Verbs: 1,203
Adjectives: 794
Adverbs: 164
Numbers: 650
Entities: 886

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.31
Average Sentence Length:
57.95
Token Entropy:
5.42
Readability (ARI):
31.30

AnalysisAI

The proposed legislation, titled the "Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act," seeks to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 with multiple significant reforms. This bill aims to update the procedures and guidelines surrounding the surveillance activities by U.S. federal agencies, mainly focusing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to enhance oversight, ensure privacy rights, and improve the transparency of intelligence operations.

General Summary of the Bill

In essence, the bill introduces various reforms aiming to tighten the control and oversight of surveillance practices conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Key provisions include amendments to ensure that U.S. person queries by the FBI are more strictly regulated, demands for mandatory audits, and limitations on using collected information unrelated to national security. Additionally, it creates accountability standards for the FBI, strengthens penalties for unauthorized disclosures, and sets new guidelines for defining electronic communication providers. Other proposals focus on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), emphasizing the rights to transparency, fair handling, and declassification of documents.

Summary of Significant Issues

A prominent concern with the bill is the ambiguity in defining terms such as "exigent circumstances," "reasonable belief," and roles of "electronic communication service providers." These ambiguities can lead to inconsistent applications and potential misuse of powers, impacting overall accountability. The extension of criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosures might inhibit whistleblowers from revealing genuine issues due to potential harsh punishments. Furthermore, procedural complexity in areas like mandatory written justifications could impose bureaucratic hurdles, delaying investigations without significant oversight improvements.

Impact on the Public

For the public, this bill represents a stride towards robust privacy protections against potential governmental overreach in surveillance. By mandating stricter requirements for handling personal data and curtailing the scope of information used outside national security, the bill could potentially enhance citizens' privacy. However, the vagueness in several definitions and absence of explicit oversight mechanisms might lead to challenges in enforcement, undermining some of the bill's protective intentions. The public might also see improved transparency due to increased reporting requirements and declassification of documents, though their practical impact could be limited by vague deadlines and unclear enforcement measures.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

From the perspective of federal agencies like the FBI, the increased oversight, procedural requirements, and accountability measures might impose additional administrative burdens. This could potentially hinder the rapid gathering of intelligence in pressing circumstances, impacting the efficacy of law enforcement operations. Legal practitioners may face challenges due to the bill's complex cross-references and amendments without substantial clarifications, making legal compliance and interpretation arduous. On the other hand, civil liberties organizations might view the bill as a positive step toward improved privacy protections, although they may also advocate for clearer definitions and stronger mechanisms for oversight to ensure the bill's effectiveness in safeguarding citizens' rights.

Overall, while the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act seeks to balance national security needs with individual privacy rights, resolving issues related to procedural complexity, definitional clarity, and oversight effectiveness will be crucial in realizing its goals.

Financial Assessment

The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (H.R. 7888) primarily focuses on reforms within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance framework, targeting the operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While the bill addresses numerous issues concerning privacy, oversight, and procedural reform, its explicit reference to financial aspects is quite limited.

Financial Allocations and References

One notable section of the bill specifically references financial penalties in the context of civil actions. In Section 15, the bill amends the law to increase penalties for violations, specifying that damages must not be less than liquidated damages equal to the greater of $10,000 or $1,000 per day for each day of violation if the aggrieved person is a United States person. For any other aggrieved individuals, the minimum is set to $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation. This change underscores a clear financial dimension within legal accountability measures, potentially impacting both individuals and entities facing violations of the Act.

Relation to Identified Issues

The financial implications here address concerns over accountability in the enforcement of surveillance laws. By imposing significant monetary penalties for violations, the bill aims to serve as a deterrent against unlawful acts and abuses of power concerning surveillance. This addresses one of the identified issues regarding accountability but also raises concerns. Imposing substantial financial penalties could lead to excessive financial burdens on individuals or entities, even in situations of minor infractions or instances where intent to violate the surveillance laws might be ambiguous.

Furthermore, these financial penalties are designed to ensure compliance and deter potential privacy violations as defined under the surveillance reforms. However, the increased penalties could also potentially stifle transparency and discourage legitimate whistleblowing, linking to the issues around criminal penalties being perceived as overly harsh.

While the bill doesn't delve into detailed appropriations or funding allocations to implement the reforms, these financial penalties highlight the bill's intent to enforce accountability through monetary means. This shift raises questions about whether financial deterrents alone suffice in effectively ensuring compliance or if additional oversight and procedural reforms are also needed to balance the financial aspects of these penalties with justice and transparency.

Issues

  • The prohibition on FBI queries solely designed to find evidence of a crime (Section 3) could impact the FBI's ability to investigate certain types of criminal activity effectively, raising concerns about the scope and limitations of law enforcement capabilities.

  • The vague definition of 'exigent circumstances' and 'reasonable belief' across multiple sections (Sections 2, 3, and others) may lead to inconsistent application and potential misuse in critical situations, impacting oversight and accountability.

  • The complexity and potential overreach of amendments regarding the definition of 'electronic communication service providers' (Section 25) risk inclusion of unintended entities, leading to privacy concerns and legal ambiguities for businesses.

  • The lack of clarity on 'willful misconduct' and 'unintentional noncompliance' for FBI queries (Section 16) and the associated accountability measures may result in inconsistent enforcement and insufficient oversight of FBI actions.

  • The inclusion of counternarcotics in the definition of foreign intelligence (Section 23) expands the scope of intelligence activities without detailing resource allocation or oversight, posing potential challenges in enforcement and privacy concerns.

  • The requirement for written justifications prior to conducting certain FBI queries (Section 2) is burdensome and could delay investigations, creating bureaucracy without sufficient independent oversight to ensure compliance with new procedures.

  • The amendments related to criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosures (Section 13) may be perceived as overly harsh, deterring potential whistleblowers from exposing government misconduct due to fear of severe punishment.

  • The repeated cross-referencing and amendments without proper clarifications (Sections 6 and 19) complicate the understanding and implementation of the bill, potentially leading to oversight issues and confusion among legal practitioners.

  • The section on public disclosure and declassification (Section 7) lacks practical enforcement mechanisms if deadlines are not met, raising accountability concerns about transparency and public oversight.

  • The lack of defined oversight mechanisms for vetting non-United States persons (Section 24) could lead to potential misuse or inefficiencies, raising privacy concerns without addressing mitigation strategies.

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The first section of the Act provides its short title, which is the "Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act".

2. Query procedure reform Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section details reforms to the FBI's query procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including limitations on personnel who can authorize queries involving U.S. persons, mandatory audits, restrictions on political appointees in the approval process, and requirements for additional training and prior approval for sensitive queries. It also includes provisions for notifying Congress about certain queries and circumstances requiring congressional consent.

3. Limitation on use of information obtained under section 702 Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section limits the FBI's ability to search information gathered under section 702 by stopping them from looking for evidence of crimes unrelated to national security and outlining when exceptions are allowed. Furthermore, it restricts the FBI from adding certain information to its databases unless connected to an active national security investigation, with exceptions made for urgent situations or when helping other agencies.

4. Targeting decisions under section 702 Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the intelligence community is prohibited from targeting U.S. persons for foreign intelligence collection without a specific court order. Additionally, the Department of Justice is required to conduct annual reviews and audits to ensure that no unauthorized targeting of U.S. persons occurs, with reports submitted to various government bodies.

5. Foreign intelligence surveillance court reform Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill proposes reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, including requiring the same judge to handle extensions of surveillance orders and allowing amici curiae to assist the court. It also provides for the designation of attorneys to review applications targeting U.S. persons and ensures that certain members of Congress and their staff can attend court proceedings.

6. Application for an order under the foreign intelligence surveillance act Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill amends several sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to strengthen requirements for applications, including mandates for sworn statements, prohibitions on using politically sourced or press-derived information without clear identification and corroboration, and providing detailed justifications in specific cases involving U.S. persons. It also modifies how long certain surveillance orders can last against non-U.S. persons, extending them from 120 days to one year.

7. Public disclosure and declassification of certain documents Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section amends part of a law to add a requirement that the declassification review of certain documents must be completed as soon as possible, but no later than 180 days after the review begins.

8. Transcriptions of proceedings Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines requirements for transcribing hearings and storing related records with their corresponding applications or orders. It also mandates notifying Congress about certain transcripts related to proceedings before intelligence courts, and providing access to declassified documents.

9. Audit of FISA compliance by inspector general Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section mandates that the Inspector General of the Department of Justice must deliver a report to specific congressional committees within 545 days, evaluating the FBI's compliance with rules for searching data under section 702. The report must cover compliance, reforms, and suggestions for improvement regarding these querying procedures, particularly those involving U.S. person terms, and be submitted in an unclassified format with an optional classified annex.

10. Accuracy and completeness of applications Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section requires applicants for certain surveillance applications to certify that they have provided the Attorney General all information that might question the accuracy or fairness of their application and mandates the disclosure of any potentially exculpatory information. The changes apply to applications made 120 days after the enactment of the Act, and procedures ensuring the accuracy of applications targeting U.S. persons must be established within 180 days.

11. Annual Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Quarterly Report to Congress Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill requires the FBI Director to submit annual and quarterly reports to Congress detailing the number of times the FBI queries certain information on U.S. persons, especially under emergency circumstances or for criminal investigations. Starting January 1, 2025, these reports will be reviewed for declassification and shared publicly every April.

12. Adverse personnel actions for Federal Bureau of Investigation Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill requires that the FBI Director report every year to certain Congressional committees about actions taken for improper information searches, and sets up accountability measures for FBI leaders to ensure they follow procedures, with annual evaluations and briefings to Congress on compliance and any disciplinary actions.

13. Criminal penalties for violations of FISA Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines changes to the penalties under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It specifies that people who knowingly and willfully share unauthorized or classified information regarding electronic surveillance or certain communications involving U.S. persons can face increased fines and imprisonment terms up to 10 years. It also mentions a sentencing enhancement for making false statements in proceedings related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

709. Penalties for unauthorized disclosure Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

A person can be punished under this section if they knowingly share or misuse classified information, especially if it harms the United States or benefits a foreign government. Such actions can result in a fine, a prison sentence of up to 8 years, or both, especially if the person was a government employee at the time.

14. Contempt power of FISC and FISC–R Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines changes to the contempt powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and its review court (FISC-R) by allowing them to be treated like any other United States district court for contempt-related crimes. It also requires annual reporting on how often these courts use their authority and includes details of each instance.

15. Increased penalties for civil actions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section amends penalties for civil violations under section 110, increasing damages to at least $10,000 for U.S. persons or $1,000 for others, depending on the circumstances. It also requires agency heads to report violations to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which will keep a list of violators.

Money References

  • (a) Increased penalties.—Subsection (a) of section 110 is amended to read as follows: “(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages equal to the greater of— “(1) if the aggrieved person is a United States person, $10,000 or $1,000 per day for each day of violation; or “(2) for any other aggrieved person, $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation;”.

110A. Reporting requirements for civil actions Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

If a court determines that someone has broken the law in a civil case under section 110, the agency they work for must report to Congress about the actions taken against them. Additionally, the agency must give the person's name to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which will keep a list of such individuals.

16. Accountability standards for incidents relating to queries conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section requires the FBI Director to establish clear rules with consequences for improper searches of U.S. persons' data, with zero tolerance for intentional misconduct and increasing penalties for mistakes. It also mandates reporting these rules to Congress within 90 days and includes annual reports on any disciplinary actions for three years, involving both intelligence and judiciary committees.

17. Removal or suspension of federal officers for misconduct before foreign intelligence surveillance court Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section explains that if a United States Government officer or employee intentionally behaves improperly during proceedings at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or its Court of Review, they could face severe consequences such as suspension without pay or even losing their job.

18. Reports and other matters Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The text describes the creation of a commission, called the "FISA Reform Commission," which will review and suggest updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The commission will include members from various government departments and Congress, and will have powers to hold hearings and require information from federal agencies, aiming to ensure both effective intelligence operations and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. The commission will submit a final report with its findings and recommendations within five years.

19. Extension of certain authorities Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section extends certain authorities related to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 by pushing the expiration date to two years after the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act is enacted, instead of April 19, 2024. It also mentions the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act alongside the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 in certain parts of the law.

20. Amendments to the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section explains that when this Act changes or removes parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, it will be automatically understood as an amendment to that Act. Additionally, any changes made by this Act, such as adding, removing, or altering sections, will also update the table of contents of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to reflect these changes.

21. Requirement for recertification Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section mandates that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence must obtain new approvals for activities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This must happen within 90 days after the law is enacted, specifically for certain activities planned between January 1, 2024, and April 30, 2024.

22. Repeal of authority for the resumption of abouts collection Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section repeals the authority to collect "abouts" communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by removing specific provisions from the 1978 Act and the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. It involves making changes to certain sections and subsections of these laws to eliminate the allowed exceptions for "abouts" collection.

23. Inclusion of counternarcotics in definition of foreign intelligence Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section updates the definition of foreign intelligence to include activities related to the international production, distribution, or funding of illegal synthetic drugs, opioids, cocaine, and other drugs that contribute to overdose deaths, as well as their precursors.

24. Vetting of non-United States persons Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to section 702 requires that any procedures used by government agencies for vetting non-U.S. persons traveling to the United States be designed to ensure that these individuals can be checked without using search terms that apply to U.S. citizens. The Attorney General must work with the Director of National Intelligence to make sure this vetting process is effective.

25. Definition of electronic communication service provider Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The bill section makes changes to the definitions related to electronic communication service providers, including adding new categories of providers who have access to communication equipment, but specifically excludes places like hotels, homes, community facilities, and restaurants. It also updates references to certain subcategories and includes "custodian" as a category of employee.