PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 26, 2016
Combating Terrorist Recruitment Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to incorporate the public statements of former violent extremists or their associates into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment, including efforts to counter-message foreign terrorist organization communications and related community engagement and public education efforts.
Additionally, DHS must coordinate with federal agencies and, as appropriate, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of such public statements.
It declares that nothing in this Act may be construed to require DHS to collect statements directly from former violent extremists or their associates.
People & committees
Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 322 - 79 (Roll no. 164). (text: CR H1961)
House roll call 164 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 322 - 79 (Roll no. 164).(text: CR H1961)
House roll call 164 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1987-1988)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4820.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1961-1966)
Mr. McCaul moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 405.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-525.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-525.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.4820 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.4820 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.4820 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.4820 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.