PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House requests a conference.
Congressional Research Service
Version 55 · Passed Senate · May 14, 2020
USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020
This bill reauthorizes through December 1, 2023, provisions related to intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) and amends FISA-related provisions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not seek certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain (1) call detail records on an ongoing basis, (2) a tangible thing where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would typically be required, or (3) cellular or GPS location information.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A tangible thing obtained under FISA may be retained for no longer than five years except in certain instances, such as when a tangible thing is reasonably believed to be evidence of a crime. If the government intends to use information from a tangible thing obtained under FISA in a trial or other proceeding, it shall be treated as information obtained through electronic surveillance, unless a U.S. authority finds that notifying the person targeted would harm national security. (There are existing protections related to electronic surveillance, such as allowing the targeted person to move to suppress the disclosure of the obtained information in court.)
In applications for certain FISA-authorized orders to obtain information or conduct surveillance, the applicant must certify that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has received any information that might raise doubts about the application. The bill imposes additional requirements on FISA-authorized orders targeting (1) a U.S. person, or (2) a federal elected official or candidate.
The bill increases criminal penalties for violations related to electronic surveillance conducted under color of law or false statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court). A U.S. government employee, officer, or contractor who engages in deliberate misconduct before a FISA court shall be subject to adverse actions, such as removal from the individual's position.
The bill broadens the criteria for when a FISA court decision shall be declassified and requires the declassification review and release of such opinions within 180 days of an opinion being issued.
The bill broadens the FISA court's authority to appoint an amicus curiae (an outside party that assists in consideration of a case) and expands such amici's powers, such as the power to ask the court to review a decision. An amicus may also seek the court's permission to address any novel or significant privacy or civil liberties issues arising in a case, even if the court did not ask for assistance on that issue. The FISA court may employ legal advisors to assist in considering any matter.
Each agency that submits applications to the FISA court shall appoint an officer responsible for compliance with FISA requirements.
An application for a FISA court order shall include all information in the government's possession that (1) is material to a ruling on the application, including any exculpatory information; or (2) calls into question the accuracy of the application or the accuracy of an assessment in the application, or otherwise raises doubts about a finding that is a required part of the application.
An application for a FISA court order shall include (1) a description of the procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the application, and (2) a certification by the applying officer (or designee) that the officer or designee has reviewed the application and accompanying documentation for accuracy and completeness. A judge may not enter a FISA court order unless the described accuracy and completeness procedures comply with requirements prescribed by this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House requests a conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees: Nadler, Schiff, Lofgren, Jordan, and Nunes.
On motion that the House disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 284 - 122 (Roll no. 115).
House roll call 115 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the motion to disagree to the Senate amendments and request a conference on H.R. 6172.
Mr. Nadler moved that the House disagree to the Senate amendments, and request a conference. (consideration: CR H2340-2346; text: CR H2340-2342)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate, under the order of 5/12/20, having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 80 - 16. Record Vote Number: 92.
Senate roll call 92 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate, under the order of 5/12/20, having achieved 60 votes in the affirmative, with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 80 - 16. Record Vote Number: 92.
Senate roll call 92 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S2432-2441)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S2388, S2396-2400, S2409-2412, S2414)
Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure withdrawn by unanimous consent in Senate. (CR S1753)
Motion to proceed to measure considered in Senate. (CR S1748)
Cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the measure presented in Senate. (CR S1735)
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (CR S1735)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 440.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 136 (Roll no. 98). (text: CR H1622-1627)
House roll call 98 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 136 (Roll no. 98).
House roll call 98 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House resumed with debate on H.R. 6172.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6172.
Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68, H.R. 2486 and H.R. 6172. Resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, and H.R. 6172. For S.J. Res. 68, the resolution provides for 1 hour of debate and 1 motion to commit. For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, the question will be divided and each portion will have 1 hour of debate. H.R. 6172 will have 1 hour ofdebate and 1 motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 891. (consideration: CR H1622-1637)
Rule H. Res. 891 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 891 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68, H.R. 2486 and H.R. 6172. Resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, and H.R. 6172. For S.J. Res. 68, the resolution provides for 1 hour of debate and 1 motion to commit. For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2486, the question will be divided and each portion will have 1 hour of debate. H.R. 6172 will have 1 hour ofdebate and 1 motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Oversight and Reform, and Homeland Security, 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 Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Oversight and Reform, and Homeland Security, 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 Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Oversight and Reform, and Homeland Security, 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 Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Oversight and Reform, and Homeland Security, 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.
Source last updated: May 28, 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.6172 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.6172 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.6172 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.6172 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.