Overview
Title
To require the public disclosure of COINTELPRO records, to establish a COINTELPRO Records Collection, and to establish the COINTELPRO Records Review Board, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make old secret FBI papers about a program called COINTELPRO available for everyone to see, keep them safe in a big library, and have a special team to check these papers before they are shared. It also wants to change the name of the FBI's main building.
Summary AI
The bill, H. R. 9973, titled the “COINTELPRO Full Disclosure Act,” proposes the public release of records related to COINTELPRO, a covert FBI program aimed at surveilling and disrupting domestic organizations from 1956. It seeks to establish a COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives and create a COINTELPRO Records Review Board to oversee the disclosure and ensure only necessary information is withheld. The bill mandates that records be made public within 25 years unless specific harm is identified, prioritizes digitization for public access, and outlines the management and operational framework for the Review Board and its personnel. Additionally, it includes provisions for renaming the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building as the “Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Building.”
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, identified as H.R. 9973, seeks to mandate the public disclosure of records related to COINTELPRO, a covert FBI program from the mid-20th century, and to establish a comprehensive system to facilitate this disclosure. It proposes the creation of a COINTELPRO Records Collection housed at the National Archives and establishes the COINTELPRO Records Review Board, which would oversee the process of reviewing and releasing these records to the public.
General Summary of the Bill
The COINTELPRO Full Disclosure Act aims to enhance transparency by making previously classified or undisclosed records about COINTELPRO accessible to the public. It establishes a structured timeline and process for the review and disclosure of these records. An independent review board is tasked with ensuring the appropriate release of information while protecting certain sensitive details when necessary. The bill also involves digitizing the records for easier public access and requires funding, potentially utilizing discretionary funds until specific appropriations are made.
Significant Issues
A primary concern is the bill's ambiguity around what precisely constitutes a "COINTELPRO record," which could lead to inconsistent interpretations about what records must be disclosed. The 25-year timeline mandated for the public disclosure of some documents raises questions about whether it is unnecessarily long. The complexity of the exceptions process and potential overrides by high-level officials could impede the timely release of records, possibly eroding public trust. Moreover, the bill lacks an appeals process for decisions regarding non-disclosure, raising further transparency issues.
Logistical challenges include the tight timeline for creating the records collection and the lack of specified criteria for determining "public interest," which could lead to varying interpretations across different government offices. Additionally, the undefined cost implications of digitizing records raise budgetary concerns.
Public Impact
For the general public, the bill promises greater transparency into COINTELPRO's historical activities, potentially enriching public understanding of civil rights issues and governmental operations. By making these records accessible, it could foster dialogue around historical injustices and their modern implications. However, the long disclosure timeline and potential barriers due to exceptions and overrides might delay access to significant information, possibly leading to frustration or dissatisfaction among those seeking transparency.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Historians and researchers stand to benefit considerably from this bill, as it provides access to previously inaccessible archival materials, enhancing scholarly work and educational opportunities. Civil rights advocates might view the bill positively as a step toward accountability and acknowledgment of past government overreaches. However, the ambiguities and delays in disclosure could limit the bill's potential effectiveness, leading to criticism from these groups.
Government agencies implicated in COINTELPRO might face scrutiny as more documents become public. The legislation could also increase administrative workloads due to the digitization and review processes, requiring adequate resources and planning to manage effectively. While transparency is generally beneficial, agencies might encounter operational challenges and public relations issues as historical records are scrutinized.
Overall, while the bill advocates for significant transparency regarding a controversial period in American history, its execution would require clear guidelines, appropriate resources, and careful balancing of privacy and public interest considerations to be successful.
Issues
The lack of a clear definition for 'COINTELPRO record' in Section 2 might lead to ambiguity and inconsistent interpretation regarding what records are subject to public disclosure, impacting transparency and accountability.
The 25-year timeline for public disclosure outlined in Section 2 is potentially too long, delaying access to important historical information and affecting public understanding of COINTELPRO activities.
The complex process for deciding exceptions to disclosure and potential overrides by high-level officials in Section 2 might lead to inconsistencies and legal challenges, impacting transparency.
The absence of an appeals process for decisions regarding non-disclosure of records in Section 2 may limit governmental oversight and public accountability.
Section 3's timeline for establishing the COINTELPRO Records Collection within 60 days may be unrealistic given the volume of records, potentially compromising the quality and accessibility of the Collection.
The lack of explicit criteria for assessing 'public interest in disclosure' in Section 2 may result in subjective interpretations and inconsistent application across different government offices.
The broad language about precedence over other laws in Section 8 might cause legal challenges regarding how this Act interacts with other relevant laws, notably the FOIA.
The potential cost implications of digitizing and making records available to the public, as mentioned in Section 3, remain unspecified, possibly leading to budgetary concerns.
The possibility of a protracted existence of the COINTELPRO Records Review Board beyond its intended mandate as mentioned in Section 4 could lead to extended costs and inefficiencies.
The vagueness regarding what distinguishes an investigation as 'official' and the definition of 'public interest' in Section 12 could lead to broad interpretations that impact the Act’s efficacy.
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; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The COINTELPRO Full Disclosure Act establishes a structure for releasing and reviewing records related to the COINTELPRO program. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of a review board and includes provisions for public disclosure, archiving, and potential further studies.
2. Public disclosure of COINTELPRO records Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section mandates that most COINTELPRO records held by government offices be made public within six months, but allows exceptions if releasing them would clearly cause harm, such as to national security or personal privacy. It outlines processes for partial disclosure, review by a board, possible overrides by high-ranking officials, and requires advance notice to victims or their relatives before records are disclosed.
3. COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the creation of a COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives, requiring the Archivist to assemble and maintain these records, provide public access and digitization for them, charge fees for copies, and establish rules for government offices to submit their documents. Government offices have up to 2 years to transfer records to the Archivist in an electronic, searchable format.
4. Establishment and powers of the COINTELPRO Records Review Board Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The COINTELPRO Records Review Board is a new independent agency established to review government decisions on the release of COINTELPRO records and can recommend to the President whether these records should be fully or partially disclosed. The board, made up of five President-appointed members, has powers such as subpoenaing documents, enforcing accountability for record destruction, and receiving public input, and it will operate for up to five years to ensure transparency of COINTELPRO records.
5. COINTELPRO Records Review Board personnel Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the roles and requirements for the personnel of the COINTELPRO Records Review Board, including appointing a Chief of Staff who must be a U.S. citizen without past involvement in COINTELPRO investigations and secure the necessary security clearances; the Chief of Staff and staff must manage administration without deciding on record disclosures, and can only be removed by Board majority vote for specific reasons. Additionally, it allows the Board to hire more staff, create advisory committees, and set compensation, with potential staff being recommended by certain professional associations and requiring security clearances.
6. Review of records by the COINTELPRO Records Review Board Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The COINTELPRO Records Review Board is responsible for reviewing records to decide if they can be made public. They keep custody of records unless a transfer is needed and issue reports on their activities, including any postponement of record disclosures. They regularly notify government offices and the public about their disclosure decisions and must inform the President and Congress before they terminate.
7. Disclosure of other information and additional study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section discusses how the Review Board can ask the Attorney General to request court permission to release sealed information about COINTELPRO. It also encourages cooperation between the Attorney General, government offices, and the Review Board to disclose relevant information, while specifying a 45-day deadline for responses to such requests.
8. Rules of construction Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section clarifies that this Act takes precedence over other laws when it comes to transmitting or disclosing records, except for specific exemptions such as personal and medical files. It also states that the Act does not affect the Freedom of Information Act rights, judicial review opportunities, or existing authority of government entities to disclose records.
9. Redesignation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the Federal building at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest in Washington, DC, which is commonly known as the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building, will be renamed to the “Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Building”.
10. References Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Any mention of the Federal building in laws, maps, regulations, and other official U.S. documents will now be understood to refer to the building named "Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Building."
11. Funding Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is allowed to use available discretionary funds to implement this Act until Congress provides specific funding for it.
12. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines various terms used in the Act, such as "Archivist" which refers to the Archivist of the United States, and "COINTELPRO," which describes an FBI program from 1956 aimed at disrupting political and advocacy groups. It also outlines the meaning of "Collection," "executive agency," "Government office," "National Archives," "official investigation," "originating body," "public interest," "record," and "Review Board," providing definitions for each to clarify their use in the Act.