Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 6, 1995
Investigations into Terrorism Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact or making any false statements or representations on any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch or any department, agency, committee, subcommittee, or office thereof, except a court when performing an adjudicative function (currently, such prohibition applies to any matter within the jurisdiction of any U.S. department or agency). Prohibits the obstruction of any U.S. department or agency proceeding or any congressional investigation by acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including by making false or misleading statements or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying documents. Amends the Federal judicial code to limit the exemption of an officer or employee of the Federal Government acting within an official capacity from U.S. district court jurisdiction to enforce a Senate subpoena or order to instances where the head of such person's department or agency, with the approval of the Attorney General, has directed the officer not to comply with the subpoena and has provided the issuer of the subpoena with a written explanation of the reasons for noncompliance. Provides for a U.S. district court to order an individual to provide information which he or she refuses to provide on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination in proceedings ancillary to either House of Congress (currently, such authority applies only to proceedings before either House).
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.887 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.887 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.887 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.887 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.