PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 27, 2016
Email Privacy Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to make a series of technical changes to clarify that the voluntary disclosure prohibitions and exceptions to such prohibitions apply to the content of communications regardless of whether the communications are held in storage or have been read.
(Sec. 3) Additionally, the bill amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to revise the standards for when a governmental entity may compel disclosure of communications content from a third party service provider. The bill removes the authority of a government entity to acquire the contents of a communication with a court order. The government must have a warrant to acquire the contents of a communication from a third party provider. A governmental entity that receives a subscriber's records or information from a provider is not required to provide notice to such person; however, a provider may notify a subscriber of a request to disclose information to the government.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) A governmental entity may apply for a court order directing a provider, for up to 180 days, to refrain from notifying any person that the provider has been required to disclose communications or records. Additionally, a governmental entity is allowed to seek one or more extensions of the delayed-notice order for periods of up to 180 days each. The government does not have to demonstrate with certainty that an adverse result will occur from notification; it only has to demonstrate that an adverse result is likely to occur.
People & committees
Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
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): 419 - 0 (Roll no. 167). (text: CR H2022-2023)
House roll call 167 · 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): 419 - 0 (Roll no. 167).(text: CR H2022-2023)
House roll call 167 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2022-2023)
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. 699.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2022-2028)
Mr. Goodlatte moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 408.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-528.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 114-528.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.699 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.699 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.699 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.699 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.