This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as NDO Fairness Act of 2025, committees such as Committee on the Judiciary, members such as Scott Fitzgerald.
Issued
August 31, 2026
house side of the record
People
2
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
1
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
2
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6048) to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify delayed notice requirements, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H. R. 6048
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “NDO Fairness Act of 2025”.
SEC. 2. PRECLUSION OF NOTICE.
(a) In General.—Section 2705(b) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
“(b) Preclusion of Notice.—
“(1) Application.—
“(A) In general.—A governmental entity that is seeking a
warrant, order, or subpoena under section 2703, when it is
not required to notify the customer or subscriber, or to the
extent that it may delay such notice pursuant to subsection
(a), may apply to a court for an order, subject to paragraph
(6), directing a provider of electronic communications
service or remote computing service to which a warrant,
order, or subpoena under section 2703 is directed not to
notify any other person of the existence of the warrant,
order, or subpoena.
“(B) Length.—An order granted under subparagraph (A)
shall be in effect—
“(i) for a period of not more than 1 year if the nature of
the offense for which the governmental entity is seeking a
warrant, order, or subpoena pertains to child pornography, as
defined in section 2256, sexual exploitation of children
under section 2251, or any Federal, State, Tribal, or
military offense that is the substantial equivalent; or
“(ii) for a period of not more than 90 days for all other
investigations.
“(C) Other requirements.—
“(i) In general.—An application for an order under
subparagraph (A) shall state, to the best of the applicant's
knowledge, whether the named customer or subscriber whose
information is sought by the warrant, order, or subpoena
under section 2703—
“(I) is aware of the warrant, order, subpoena, or
underlying investigation; and
“(II) is suspected of involvement in the commission of the
crime under investigation.
“(ii) Orders.—An order granted under this paragraph may
not direct, or otherwise require, a provider of electronic
communications service or remote computing service to provide
notification of the expiration of order to the court or
government entity that sought the order.
“(2) Determination.—
“(A) In general.—The court may not grant a request for an
order made under paragraph (1), or an extension of such order
requested by the governmental entity pursuant to paragraph
(3), unless—
“(i) the court issues a written determination, based on
specific and articulable facts, and including written
findings of fact and conclusions of law, that it is likely
that not granting the request will result in—
“(I) endangering the life or physical safety of an
individual;
“(II) flight from prosecution;
“(III) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
“(IV) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
“(V) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or
unduly delaying a trial; and
“(ii) the order is narrowly tailored and there is no less
restrictive alternative, including notification to an
individual or organization within or providing legal
representation to the named customer or subscriber, that is
not likely to result in an adverse result as described in
subclauses (I) through (V) of subparagraph (A)(i); and
“(iii) the court has reviewed the individual warrant,
order, or subpoena under section 2703 to which the order
issued under this paragraph applies.
“(B) Nature of the offense.—
“(i) In general.—Subject to clause (ii), the court may
consider the nature of the offense in issuing a determination
under subparagraph (A).
“(ii) Presumption.—If the court determines there is a
reasonable belief the nature of the offense pertains to child
pornography, as defined in section 2256, or sexual
exploitation of children, as described in section 2251, or
any Federal, including military, State, or tribal offense
that is the substantial equivalent, the court may presume
that one or more of the adverse results described in
subclauses (I) through (V) of subparagraph (A)(i) are met and
may issue an order consistent with this subsection without a
written decision under subparagraph (A)(i).
“(3) Extension.—A governmental entity may request one or
more extensions of an order granted under paragraph (1) of
not more than 90 days for each such extension. The court may
only grant such an extension if the court makes a written
determination required under paragraph (2)(A).
“(4) Notification of changed circumstances.—If the need
for the order issued under paragraph (1) changes materially,
the governmental entity that requested the order shall notify
the court within a reasonable period of time (not to exceed
14 days) of the changed circumstances, and the court shall
reassess the order and modify or vacate as appropriate.
“(5) Opportunity to be heard.—
“(A) In general.—Upon an application, petition, or motion
by a provider of electronic communications service or remote
computing service or person acting on behalf of the provider
to which an order under paragraph (1) (or an extension under
paragraph (3)) has been issued, the court may modify or
vacate the order if—
“(i) the order does not meet requirements provided in
paragraph (2) or (3); or
“(ii) compliance with the order is unreasonable or
otherwise unlawful.
“(B) Stay of disclosure of named customer or subscriber
communications or records.—A provider's obligation to
disclose the information requested in the warrant, order, or
subpoena to which the order in paragraph (1) applies is
stayed for a period of 72 hours upon the filing of the
application, petition, or motion under this paragraph, unless
the court with jurisdiction over the challenge determines,
based on a showing by the provider or the governmental
entity, that the stay should be extended or lifted in whole
or in part prior to resolution of the application, petition,
or motion.
“(C) Finality of order.—The decision of the court
resolving an application, petition, or motion under this
paragraph shall constitute a final, appealable order.
“(6) Exception.—A provider of electronic communications
service or remote computing service to which an order under
paragraph (1) applies, or an officer, employee, or agent
thereof, may disclose information otherwise subject to any
applicable nondisclosure requirement to—
“(A) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary in
order to comply with the warrant, order, or subpoena;
“(B) an attorney in order to obtain legal advice or
assistance regarding the order issued under paragraph (1) or
the warrant, order, or subpoena to which the order applies;
and
“(C) any person the court determines can be notified of
the warrant, order, or subpoena.
“(7) Scope of nondisclosure.—Any person to whom
disclosure is made under paragraph (6) (other than the
governmental entity) shall be subject to the nondisclosure
requirements applicable to the person to whom the order is
issued. Any recipient authorized under this subsection to
disclose to a person information otherwise subject to a
nondisclosure requirement shall notify the person of the
applicable nondisclosure requirement.
“(8) Supporting documentation.—Upon serving a provider of
electronic communications service or remote computing service
with an order granted under paragraph (1), or an extension of
such order granted under paragraph (3), the governmental
entity shall include a copy of the warrant, order, or
subpoena to which the nondisclosure order applies.
“(9) Expiration of order precluding notice.—Upon
expiration of an order issued under paragraph (1) or, if an
extension has been granted under paragraph (3), expiration of
the extension, the governmental entity shall deliver to the
named customer or subscriber, by at least 2 methods, which
shall be personal service, registered or first-class mail,
electronic mail, or other means approved by the court as
reasonably calculated to reach the named customer or
subscriber within 5 business days of the expiration of the
order—
“(A) a copy of the warrant, order, or subpoena; and
“(B) notice that informs the named customer or
subscriber—
“(i) of the nature of the law enforcement inquiry with
reasonable specificity;
“(ii) that information maintained for such customer or
subscriber by the provider of electronic communications
service or remote computing service to which the warrant,
order, or subpoena under section 2703, was directed was
supplied to or requested by the government entity;
“(iii) that notification of such customer or subscriber
was precluded by court order;
“(iv) of the identity of the court authorizing the
preclusion of notice;
“(v) of the provision of this chapter under which the
preclusion of notice was authorized; and
“(vi) that the government will, upon request by the
customer or subscriber made within 180 days after receiving
notification under this paragraph, provide the named customer
or subscriber with a copy of the information that was
disclosed in response to the warrant, order or subpoena, or
in the event that no information was disclosed, a written
certification that no information was disclosed.
“(10) Copy of information disclosed.—Upon expiration of
the order precluding notice issued under paragraph (1) or (3)
of this subsection, and at the request of the named customer
or subscriber made within 180 days of receiving notification
under paragraph (9), the governmental entity shall promptly
provide the named customer or subscriber—
“(A) with a copy of the information that was disclosed in
response to the warrant, order or subpoena except—
“(i) illicit records;
“(ii) records or materials pertaining to child
pornography, as defined in section 2256, or sexual
exploitation of children, as described in section 2251, or
any Federal, including military, State, tribal, or offense
that is the substantial equivalent; or
“(iii) other illegal material; or
“(B) in the event that no information was disclosed, a
written certification that no information was disclosed.
“(11) Redactions.—Any information disclosed pursuant to
paragraphs (9) and (10) may be redacted only if a court finds
such redactions necessary to preserve the secrecy or
integrity of an investigation.”.
(b) Additional Provisions Regarding Delayed Notice.—
Section 2705 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
“(c) Annual Report.—
“(1) In general.—On an annual basis, the Attorney General
shall provide to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, which the Attorney General shall
publish on the website of the Department of Justice, in a
manner consistent with protection of national security, a
report setting forth with respect to the preceding calendar
year, for each Federal judicial district—
“(A) the number of named customers or subscribers with
respect to whom, in that calendar year, a warrant, subpoena,
or court order was issued pursuant to section 2703;
“(B) the aggregate number of applications requesting delay
of notification pursuant to subsection (a)(1), preclusion of
notice pursuant to subsection (b)(1), and extensions pursuant
to subsection (b)(3);
“(C) the aggregate number of orders under this section
either granting, extending, or denying a request for delay of
notification or preclusion of notice;
“(D) the aggregate number of orders under this section
affecting a member of the news media, including any conduct
related to activities protected under the First Amendment;
and
“(E) the aggregate number of arrests, trials, and
convictions, resulting from investigations in which orders
under this section were obtained, including the offenses for
which individuals were arrested, tried, or convicted.
“(2) Process.—The Attorney General shall include in the
report under this subsection a description of the process and
the information used to determine the numbers for each of
subparagraphs (A) through (E) or paragraph (1).”.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6048.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation H.R. 6048, the NDO Fairness Act of 2025, and urge its passage.
obtains and utilizes nondisclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders.
officer wanted to search someone's office, they would be required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause.
individual, who would then have an opportunity to challenge the search in court. However, the era of cloud computing has ushered in a new method of storing sensitive information, whereby individuals are replacing file cabinets with digital file folders.
the digital one, individuals are also surrendering their expectation of privacy. That is because a provision within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to access an individual's data by subpoenaing the third-party service provider, such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple, rather than the individual.
company, preventing them from notifying the individual of the search. The secrecy order is often boilerplate and without a time limit, leading to abuse or overuse.
authorities requested U.S. citizen data from more than 5,500 accounts, an average of 15 requests per day.
nearly 54,000 accounts. In nearly all these cases, a secrecy order was imposed on the company to prevent the disclosure of the search.
Committee that Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained nondisclosure orders to prevent phone carriers from notifying Members of Congress that their phone records were searched.
that their information was searched, all because a Federal judge accepted the government's boilerplate secrecy order, suggesting disclosure would seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation.
of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment protections in favor of convenience.
This legislation ends indefinite secrecy orders. Instead, it requires the court to certify that disclosing the search is likely to jeopardize an investigation, result in the destruction of evidence, or endanger the life of an individual.
{time} 1620
an extension available if, and only if, the need for secrecy is justified based on arguable facts and approval by a judge.
a chance to be heard and a chance to request a copy of the information that was disclosed.
us with an opportunity to address the threat to our constitutional freedoms, not just for elected officials, but for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler) for co- leading this bill. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, welcome back to you and to Mr. Fitzgerald. I am pleased we are working together to address a real flaw in government surveillance authorities and to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil liberties by moving the NDO Fairness Act today.
Under the Stored Communications Act, prosecutors can go to a judge to
our work documents, and our phone records on their servers. Most of these can be searched if the government gets a warrant based on probable cause that the search will reveal evidence of criminal activity, but unlike the searches most Americans are familiar with from TV dramas where an officer shows up at a suspect's house with a warrant, the Stored Communications Act allows Federal investigators to request a nondisclosure order, also known as an NDO, from a Federal judge, preventing your service provider from ever telling you that your email account or phone records had been seized.
There is no statutory time limit. NDOs can exist in perpetuity, allowing the government to forever hide their searches from the searched.
nondisclosure order, an NDO, for a brief period of time. In some cases, immediate notice might put an undercover agent in direct danger or risk the destruction of key evidence or compromise an ongoing investigation, but 40 years after passage of the Stored Communications Act, the government's use of nondisclosure orders has expanded well beyond these high exigency cases.
box-checking exercise. The statute allows the government to maintain these nondisclosure orders indefinitely. DOJ's current policy limits the duration of the NDOs to 3 years, and that policy is itself totally voluntary and flexible. DOJ can rescind, suspend, or even just ignore it at will.
privacy under the Constitution. By limiting nondisclosure orders to 90 days with the possibility of renewal if there is an actual emergency still ongoing, the NDO Fairness Act ends the so-called forever NDOs where nondisclosure orders have no end date and no end in sight.
we end the so-called rubberstamp NDOs in which applications for an NDO are submitted with boilerplate language and no evidence demonstrating any true or compelling need for nondisclosure.
the requests, we limit nondisclosure orders to those where secrecy is actually necessary to the pursuit of the investigation.
an increasingly large percentage of their information online and should expect notice if the government is rifling through their records.
Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into President Trump's effort to interfere with the results of the 2020 election, an effort that culminated in an attack on this building, the U.S. Capitol, on January 6, 2021.
attack and while the mob was still rampaging in the Capitol, President Trump and his enablers, like Rudy Giuliani, made a series of phone calls to Members of Congress trying to convince them not to certify the election, even as the insurrectionists were tearing through the building.
asked a Federal grand jury to subpoena the phone companies for the records associated with individual Members of Congress known to have been in contact with the White House over a 4-day period running from around January 6, 2021. The subpoena sought call records, the kind of information that is on your phone bill, not the content of any calls or text messages, but a record of who called who when. He also asked a Federal judge to issue an NDO for those subpoenas. He did so after receiving permission to do so from the Public Integrity Section and in full compliance with both existing law and DOJ policy.
witnesses not to testify against him. In August 2023, while he was being prosecuted for these efforts to overturn the 2020 elections, he posted the message: “If you go after me, I am coming after you.”
justified nondisclosure orders under the law as it was understood. Their response was to pass a law giving them, and them alone, the right to collect $1 million apiece each time the government sought their communications records, in the past and in the future.
multimillion-dollar payday for themselves as U.S. Senators. They did not even include mere lowly Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in their legislation.
and we succeeded in overturning, I think unanimously in this body, that stunningly corrupt law. The proposal before us today addresses the problem at its root for all Americans and protects all of us, not just the 100 Americans who we get to serve with in the Chamber down the hall.
NDOs in all kinds of probes. The number of orders accompanied by NDOs that electronic communication companies receive has only increased since this legislation was first introduced over 4 years ago.
This body has proudly already passed this bill twice. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the Senate may now realize and act on the fundamental importance of this legislation for everyone in America.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for leading the NDO Fairness Act since this legislation was first developed, and I thank Mr. Fitzgerald for ably leading the charge in this Congress. I look forward to voting “yes” on this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, for the aforementioned reasons, I enthusiastically endorse this legislation and encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 6048, which will provide much-needed safeguards on the secrecy order process. This bill passed the House nearly unanimously last Congress, and it is my hope it does so again today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to again vote “aye” on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6048, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.