PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 13, 2013
Restore Our Privacy Act - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to authorize the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to apply for an order requiring the production of any tangible things only: (1) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person; or (2) for an investigation concerning international terrorism (currently, to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities).
Requires the application for such an order to include specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe (currently, a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe) that each tangible thing sought is relevant to an authorized investigation.
Eliminates as presumptively relevant to such an investigation tangible things that pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation. Requires the judge, for each tangible thing to be released, to enter a finding that the Director has presented specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the thing is relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) fully inform Congress semiannually (currently, annually) concerning the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied; (2) include in such information a description with respect to each application of the specific purpose for such production and an analysis of the effectiveness of each application that was granted or modified in protecting U.S. citizens against terrorism; and (3) make such information available to the public in a manner consistent with the protection of national security.
People & committees
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] · I–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1168 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1168 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1168 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1168 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.