Overview

Title

To reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

ELI5 AI

H.R. 7888 is a bill that wants to make new rules for how the FBI can look at information about people in the U.S., making sure they follow the rules and get checked on often to keep it fair and right. It also wants to have stricter punishments if someone breaks these rules, while trying to make the whole process more open and honest.

Summary AI

H.R. 7888 proposes changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, focusing on the procedures of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) when querying information about U.S. citizens. The bill aims to impose stricter limits, require audits, and ensure oversight of the FBI's use of surveillance data. It also seeks to improve transparency and accountability of these practices by mandating regular reports to Congress and implementing penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosures. Additionally, the bill outlines reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, enhances oversight of intelligence activities, and establishes new rules for handling sensitive information.

Published

2024-04-09
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: HOUSE
Status: Introduced in House
Date: 2024-04-09
Package ID: BILLS-118hr7888ih

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
23
Words:
15,878
Pages:
84
Sentences:
283

Language

Nouns: 4,452
Verbs: 1,129
Adjectives: 765
Adverbs: 161
Numbers: 582
Entities: 802

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.35
Average Sentence Length:
56.11
Token Entropy:
5.41
Readability (ARI):
30.60

AnalysisAI

The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act is a proposed legislative effort that aims to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, focusing on reforming procedures related to intelligence gathering, particularly concerning U.S. persons. The bill introduces a range of measures intended to enhance oversight, transparency, and accountability within the intelligence community, especially in the context of data queries and surveillance practices.

General Summary of the Bill

The bill proposes extensive reforms to existing surveillance laws. Key elements include increasing oversight of the FBI's data querying practices, prohibiting certain uses of gathered information, and enhancing the accuracy and accountability of applications for surveillance orders. It also seeks reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, introducing the use of expert advisors to assist with cases. The bill mandates stricter procedures for handling searches related to U.S. persons, including requiring training and approval processes. Additionally, it calls for increased penalties for unauthorized disclosures of information and sets up mechanisms for regular audits and reports to improve compliance and transparency.

Summary of Significant Issues

A primary concern highlighted in the bill is the complexity and potential for misinterpretation of the new procedures, particularly for FBI personnel. The bill's language often includes legal jargon and nested clauses, which could lead to ambiguities in enforcement and compliance. For instance, terms like "reasonable belief" lack clear criteria, potentially leading to inconsistent application.

Moreover, the prohibition on using information obtained under section 702 for criminal investigations unrelated to national security could hinder effective law enforcement activities. While the intent is to protect civil liberties, it may inadvertently limit the FBI’s ability to pursue investigations thoroughly.

Additionally, the establishment of the FISA Reform Commission, while intended to oversee improvements, comes with exemptions from key transparency measures such as the Freedom of Information Act, raising concerns about public oversight.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the bill has the potential to alter how intelligence is gathered and used, impacting both public safety and civil liberties. The reforms could contribute positively by providing more accountability and oversight, theoretically reducing the risk of improper surveillance of U.S. citizens. By tightening procedures, the bill aims to protect individual privacy and prevent abuses of power.

However, the complexity and potential for procedural bottlenecks could slow down intelligence operations, possibly affecting national security efforts if time-sensitive activities are delayed. The increased penalties for breaches might deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward with legitimate concerns, impacting transparency.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Law Enforcement Agencies: Agencies like the FBI face increased scrutiny and more stringent procedures, which might enhance accountability but also introduce new operational challenges. The requirement for training and certifications could strain resources and extend timelines for investigations.

Judicial System: The reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, including mandatory use of amicus curiae, aim to encourage thorough scrutiny. Yet, they may also lead to delays in important cases due to the added layers of review and potential for backlog.

Civil Liberties Advocates: For these groups, the bill may represent a positive step towards safeguarding privacy. It addresses concerns about unauthorized surveillance and aims to ensure a balance between security and individual rights.

Intelligence Community: While aimed at ensuring lawful and ethical conduct, the reforms could be perceived as cumbersome, potentially impacting the efficiency of intelligence operations. The exemption from transparency laws for the FISA Reform Commission is likely to be contentious, as it restricts public oversight.

In conclusion, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act presents a mixture of benefits and challenges. While it aims to reinforce the legal framework governing surveillance and protect civil liberties, it also introduces complexities that could impact the effectiveness of intelligence operations. As the bill progresses, careful consideration of these issues will be crucial to achieving its intended balance between security and privacy.

Financial Assessment

The legislative text of H.R. 7888 includes several financial references, notably related to penalties and appropriations.

Increased Penalties for Civil Actions

Within Section 15 of H.R. 7888, there is a specific financial reference concerning increased penalties for civil actions related to violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The penalties have been adjusted to ensure that aggrieved persons receive actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages equal to the greater of $10,000 or $1,000 per day for each day of violation if the person is a United States citizen. For other aggrieved persons, this amount is set at $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation.

This adjustment of penalties might raise concerns about proportionality, as United States persons face significantly higher minimum penalties than others. This could lead to debates about fairness and whether such distinctions are justified, particularly from a financial and ethical standpoint. These enhanced penalties might be seen as necessary to deter violations, but they could also be viewed as excessively punitive, especially in cases where violations occur without malicious intent.

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 18 introduces the authorization for appropriated funds for the activities of the FISA Reform Commission. Although the exact amounts are not detailed within the bill, the provision calls for funding to be specifically provided in appropriations acts, which underscores the potential for significant financial allocation to support the commission's activities.

The allocation of funds to the FISA Reform Commission is intended to facilitate its broad responsibilities, including reviewing and recommending legislative changes. However, the commission's exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Freedom of Information Act restricts transparency and public oversight, which might draw criticism about how the funds are being used without adequate public review or input.

Financial Implications and Accountability

The bill expressly involves increased financial penalties and authorizations rather than direct spending or appropriations. The enhanced penalties set a precedent for financial reparations in cases of unauthorized surveillance, stressing financial accountability. However, these financial implications may become controversial, especially in terms of ensuring proportionality and fairness in their application.

In summary, while H.R. 7888 outlines significant financial penalties and authorizations, it also raises issues of transparency and accountability in how these financial measures are to be implemented and justified. The financial references within the bill could lead to discussions not only about financial justice and deterrence but also about the ethical distribution of penalties and the oversight of allocated funds.

Issues

  • The amendment to penalties for unauthorized disclosure of electronic surveillance applications and classified information in Section 13 may deter whistleblowers from exposing government misconduct due to harsh penalties, such as imprisonment terms of up to 10 years. This raises significant legal and ethical concerns.

  • Section 2 introduces complexity in the query procedure reform for the FBI, potentially leading to misinterpretation and procedural bottlenecks. The lack of clear criteria for 'reasonable belief' and insufficiently defined training standards create further ambiguities, impacting legal compliance and operational efficiency.

  • The increased penalties for civil actions in Section 15 may raise concerns about proportionality, especially for United States persons who face higher minimum penalties compared to other aggrieved persons. This could be controversial for financial and ethical reasons.

  • Section 5's use of amici curiae and the requirement for the same judge to hear extension applications could slow down proceedings and introduce inefficiencies, causing delays in urgent matters. This might draw political and practical scrutiny.

  • Section 12's adverse personnel actions for FBI officers do not define 'noncompliant querying' or what constitutes 'adverse personnel actions,' potentially leading to inconsistent application and accountability, raising ethical concerns.

  • Section 3's limitation on the FBI's use of information obtained under Section 702 by prohibiting queries solely for evidence of a crime might hinder effective criminal investigations, affecting law enforcement efforts in sensitive cases.

  • The requirement for congressional consent prior to certain FBI queries in Section 2 could impede timely and necessary investigations. The waiver for national security considerations reduces transparency and may be politically controversial.

  • Section 18's establishment of the FISA Reform Commission, with broad powers and exemptions from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Freedom of Information Act, limits transparency and public oversight, raising ethical concerns.

  • Section 14's extension of contempt powers to FISC and FISC-R lacks a clear definition of 'contempt,' which may lead to legal ambiguities and differing standards of accountability.

  • The audit and compliance requirements in Section 9 and Section 16 lack specific budgeting or resource allocations, which could lead to incomplete implementation, affecting financial transparency and accountability.

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 outlines new rules for how the FBI can conduct searches on data related to U.S. persons. It includes needing prior approval, especially for sensitive targets like politicians or religious figures, bars political appointees from the approval process, requires regular audits, and mandates Congress be notified of certain searches involving members of Congress or their briefings.

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

Congress emphasizes that section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibits targeting U.S. persons without a specific court order, and mandates yearly reviews and audits by the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with these rules, requiring certifications to Congress that targeting decisions do not aim at known U.S. persons.

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

Summary AI

The section introduces reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, including requiring the same judge to decide on extensions for surveillance orders targeting Americans when possible. It also mandates the use of expert advisors called amicus curiae to help the court with certain cases and requires appointing attorneys to review applications targeting Americans to ensure there are no flaws.

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 requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to submit reports to Congress on how well the FBI follows rules for using certain search practices under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These reports will evaluate the FBI's compliance, improvements made, and suggest ways to be even better, especially concerning searches involving U.S. citizens.

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 Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines changes to the reporting requirements for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), mandating that the FBI's Director submits an annual report to specific government committees about their queries involving U.S. persons' data under a particular surveillance program. This report must include count-based details and estimates regarding various types of queries conducted, and it should be made publicly available after a review for declassification.

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

Summary AI

The section requires the FBI Director to report annually to certain congressional committees about disciplinary actions related to improper use of certain surveillance data. It also mandates that the FBI implement measures to hold its executive leadership accountable for ensuring compliance with certain legal procedures, with regular briefings to Congress on these efforts.

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; sunset Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section discusses amendments to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, changing key dates to "five years after the enactment of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act," and explaining that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will revert to its prior state five years after the date of this new Act's enactment.

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 requires that, despite existing orders or permissions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence must obtain new orders and authorizations within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, following the updated rules of the same law.