PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4204)
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jul 7, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends S.Res. 400 (94th Congress) with respect to the jurisdiction of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Select Committee) to review, hold hearings, and report the nominations of individuals for positions in the intelligence community for which appointments are made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Sets forth a process for the Select Committee to engage in a sequential referral with the Committee on Armed Services of nominations to the positions of Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), NSA Inspector General, Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), or NRO Inspector General. Makes the order of referral dependent upon whether the nominee, at the time of the nomination, is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires such nominations to be referred: (1) first to the Committee on Armed Services and then to the Select Committee (if and when reported by the Committee on Armed Services) if the nominee, at the time of the nomination, is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty; or (2) first to the Select Committee and then to the Committee on Armed Services (if and when reported by the Select Committee) if the nominee, at the time of the nomination, is not a member of the Armed Forces on active duty.
Prohibits the second referral from exceeding 30 calendar days, except that in cases when the 30-day period expires while the Senate is in recess, the second committee is provided 5 additional calendar days after the Senate reconvenes to report the nomination. Requires the nomination to be automatically discharged and placed on the Executive Calendar if such reporting period for subsequent referral expires.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4204)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4204)
Submitted in the Senate. Ordered Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 429. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3606-3607)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Nov 4, 2022. 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 S.Res.470 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 S.Res.470 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 S.Res.470 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 S.Res.470 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.