PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 1996
Effective Antiterrorism Tools for Law Enforcement Act of 1996 - Amends the Federal criminal code to apply provisions regarding pen registers and trap and trace devices to foreign counterintelligence and international terrorism investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Requires any common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility to comply with a request for records in its possession by the FBI under specified circumstances. Provides that provisions prohibiting the use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications in violation of the Federal criminal code shall not apply to the disclosure by the United States in a criminal trial or hearing or before a grand jury of the contents of a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, unless the violation involved an interception under provisions covering specified emergency situations or bad faith by law enforcement. Grants: (1) wiretap authority in cases of terrorism-related or explosives felonies; and (2) temporary emergency wiretap authority involving terrorism crimes. Expands authority for multi-point wiretaps. Authorizes the Attorney General to request, and the Secretary of Defense to provide (if specified conditions are met), technical assistance in support of Department of Justice activities in situations involving biological or chemical weapon emergencies. Sets penalties for the use without lawful authority of, or attempts or conspiracy to use, chemical weapons. Modifies Federal prohibitions against the use of weapons of mass destruction to prohibit and penalize only such use without lawful authority.
People & committees
Rep. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY-9] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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 21, 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.3409 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.3409 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.3409 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.3409 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.