Private, no accountPrivacy details: browsing privately, no account needed
You're browsing privately, no account needed. Your region stays in this session and your precise location is never stored.What we store
H.R. 4570 · 109th CongressIn committee

National Security Letter Judicial and Congressional Oversight Act

Latest action. Referred to the subcommitteeA smaller panel inside a standing committee with jurisdiction over a slice of its subject matter. Most hearings and the first markup usually happen here.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. · February 16, 2006

Live record from Congress.gov, updated as the official record changes.
What this bill would do
Official summary · Congressional Research Service

National Security Letter Judicial and Congressional Oversight Act - Prohibits a national security letter from issuing unless a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or a designated U.S. Magistrate Judge finds that: (1) the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; (2) such an investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted soley upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution; and (3) there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the information sought pertains to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Requires the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish an electronic system for the submission of documents and other information relating to such proceedings, and for the issuance of orders relating to national security letters.

Expresses the sense of Congress that, in the case of a challenge to a nondisclosure requirement of a national security letter, a certification by the Attorney General or other appropriate head or deputy head of a federal department, agency, or instrumentality that disclosure of such a letter may endanger U.S. national security or interfere with diplomatic relations should not be considered conclusive evidence but only a rebuttable presumption that such disclosure would do so.

Directs the Attorney General to establish minimization and destruction procedures to ensure that information obtained pursuant to a national security letter regarding persons no longer of interest in an authorized investigation is destroyed.

Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on December 16, 2005. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.

Status
Introduced
December 16, 2005
In committee
February 16, 2006
Passed a chamber
Cleared Congress
Enacted
Where this sits in the process
Common questions
Composed from the official record
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?

4 steps remain before this bill could become law.

The record's latest action, on February 16, 2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

  1. Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
  2. Passage by the House
  3. Passage by the Senate
  4. The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?

Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.

In the 109th Congress (2005-06), 482 of the 10,701 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 4.5 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.

This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.

Has anyone actually voted on it?

No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.

A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.

Who is behind it?

JANE HARMAN (D-CA) introduced it on December 16, 2005, and 12 members have since signed on as cosponsors.

They are 12 Democrats.

Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.

How long has it been in play?

It was introduced on December 16, 2005, 7573 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 7511 days ago, on February 16, 2006.

Measures do not carry over. Anything the 109th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2007 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.

Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.

Vote history

  1. House
    In committee, no floor vote yet
  2. Senate
    Awaits House passage
  3. President
    Awaits both chambers
No recorded votes yet
No roll call in this Congress cites this bill. Most bills die in committee without ever reaching a recorded floor vote.