PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 2013
Privacy Advocate General Act of 2013 - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to establish as an independent office in the executive branch the Office of the Privacy Advocate General, to be headed by the Privacy Advocate General who shall be appointed jointly by the Chief Justice of the United States and the senior Associate Justice for a seven-year term.
Requires the Privacy Advocate General to: (1) serve as the opposing counsel with respect to any application by the federal government for an order or directive and any review of a certification or targeting procedures under FISA; and (2) oppose any federal government request for an order or directive under FISA and any certification or targeting procedures and argue the merits of the opposition before the FISA court, including any arguments relating to constitutionality. Authorizes the Privacy Advocate General to: (1) request that the FISA court make publicly available an order, decision, or opinion of the court; and (2) file appeals and petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Authorizes a FISA judge, after denying an application by the federal government to permit electronic surveillance, physical searches, and the installation and use of a pen register and trace device, to issue a temporary order allowing such surveillance, searches, and installation pending an appeal by the government, if the judge finds: (1) there is a reasonable argument that such surveillance, search, or installation is permissible; and (2) there are exceptional circumstances and compelling evidence showing that immediate electronic surveillance, physical searches, and installation of pen register and trace devices are necessary to accomplish the government's purpose. Requires the destruction of any information gathered or derived from such electronic surveillance, searches, and installation of pen register and trace devices if the government's application is denied on appeal.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 12, 2025. 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 H.R.2849 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 H.R.2849 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 H.R.2849 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 H.R.2849 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.