PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 20, 2009
Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009 - Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to authorize each Inspector General of an establishment to issue a subpoena to require any former employee of the establishment, any former employee of a contractor (or subcontractor) of the establishment, or any former contractor (or subcontractor) of the establishment to provide testimony by deposition that relates to matters occurring in connection with that individual's employment or status.
Requires an Inspector General, at least seven days before issuing a subpoena, to notify the Attorney General about the subpoena and the nature of the testimony sought. Prohibits the Inspector General from issuing the subpoena if the Attorney General objects within such seven days. Requires the Attorney General, if he or she objects, to find in writing within 30 days after receiving such notice that the testimony: (1) is likely to endanger U.S. national security, to interfere with a federal or state criminal investigation or prosecution, or to interfere with civil litigation to which the United States is, or is likely to be, a party; or (2) otherwise is not authorized by this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
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 Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2579)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.3848 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.3848 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.3848 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.3848 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.