Fitzgerald’s recent floor appearances all concern his own bill, the NDO Fairness Act, which would limit how long law enforcement can keep secrecy orders on digital searches. He argues the case in detail, citing specific figures on federal data requests to Microsoft and Google and pointing to Judiciary Committee revelations about members’ phone records, framing the issue as a Fourth Amendment concern that crosses party lines and pressing for bipartisan passage. His speaking style is substantive and bill-focused: he explains the legal problem step by step, supports claims with numbers and named sources, and closes with a direct request for votes rather than broad attacks on the other party.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes it harder for the government to secretly get people's communications data.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 6048, which will provide much-needed safeguards on the secrecy order process. This bill passed the House nearly unanimously last Congress, and it is my hope it does so again today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to again vote ``aye’’ on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 6048, which will provide much-needed safeguards on the secrecy order process. This bill passed the House nearly unanimously last Congress, and it is my hope it does so again today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to again vote ``aye’’ on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
“I want the House to pass this bill. Right now, the government can secretly look at people's online data by ordering tech companies not to tell them. This bill limits those secrecy orders to 90 days and makes the government prove to a judge why a search must stay secret.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation H.R. 6048, the NDO Fairness Act of 2025, and urge its passage. This bill makes much-needed changes to the way law enforcement obtains and utilizes nondisclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders. Before modern advancements in cloud computing, when a law enforcement officer wanted to search someone’s office, they would be required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause. When the officer executed the search, they would notify the individual, who would then have an opportunity to challenge the search in court. However, the era of cloud computing has ushered in a new method of storing sensitive information, whereby individuals are replacing file cabinets with digital file folders. Unbeknownst to them, by surrendering the physical office in favor of the digital one, individuals are also surrendering their expectation of privacy. That is because a provision within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to access an individual’s data by subpoenaing the third-party service provider, such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple, rather than the individual. The law enforcement officer then imposes a secrecy order on the company, preventing them from notifying the individual of the search. The secrecy order is often boilerplate and without a time limit, leading to abuse or overuse. According to Microsoft, between July and December 2024, Federal authorities requested U.S. citizen data from more than 5,500 accounts, an average of 15 requests per day. Over the same period, Google received more than 24,000 subpoenas for nearly 54,000 accounts. In nearly all these cases, a secrecy order was imposed on the company to prevent the disclosure of the search. Look no further than the recent revelations by the House Judiciary Committee that Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained nondisclosure orders to prevent phone carriers from notifying Members of Congress that their phone records were searched. For nearly 2 years, Members of Congress were unable to be notified that their information was searched, all because a Federal judge accepted the government’s boilerplate secrecy order, suggesting disclosure would seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Regardless of your politics, this should alarm every sitting Member of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment protections in favor of convenience. This legislation ends indefinite secrecy orders. Instead, it requires the court to certify that disclosing the search is likely to jeopardize an investigation, result in the destruction of evidence, or endanger the life of an individual. This legislation also imposes a 90-day limit on secrecy orders, with an extension available if, and only if, the need for secrecy is justified based on arguable facts and approval by a judge. Finally, this legislation gives the individual subject to the search a chance to be heard and a chance to request a copy of the information that was disclosed. Today’s legislation, while not a major overhaul of the ECPA, provides us with an opportunity to address the threat to our constitutional freedoms, not just for elected officials, but for all Americans. These changes, I believe, will bring searches of the cloud more closely in line with the Fourth Amendment searches. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler) for co- leading this bill. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on the issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation H.R. 6048, the NDO Fairness Act of 2025, and urge its passage. This bill makes much-needed changes to the way law enforcement obtains and utilizes nondisclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders. Before modern advancements in cloud computing, when a law enforcement officer wanted to search someone’s office, they would be required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause. When the officer executed the search, they would notify the individual, who would then have an opportunity to challenge the search in court. However, the era of cloud computing has ushered in a new method of storing sensitive information, whereby individuals are replacing file cabinets with digital file folders. Unbeknownst to them, by surrendering the physical office in favor of the digital one, individuals are also surrendering their expectation of privacy. That is because a provision within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to access an individual’s data by subpoenaing the third-party service provider, such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple, rather than the individual. The law enforcement officer then imposes a secrecy order on the company, preventing them from notifying the individual of the search. The secrecy order is often boilerplate and without a time limit, leading to abuse or overuse. According to Microsoft, between July and December 2024, Federal authorities requested U.S. citizen data from more than 5,500 accounts, an average of 15 requests per day. Over the same period, Google received more than 24,000 subpoenas for nearly 54,000 accounts. In nearly all these cases, a secrecy order was imposed on the company to prevent the disclosure of the search. Look no further than the recent revelations by the House Judiciary Committee that Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained nondisclosure orders to prevent phone carriers from notifying Members of Congress that their phone records were searched. For nearly 2 years, Members of Congress were unable to be notified that their information was searched, all because a Federal judge accepted the government’s boilerplate secrecy order, suggesting disclosure would seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Regardless of your politics, this should alarm every sitting Member of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment protections in favor of convenience. This legislation ends indefinite secrecy orders. Instead, it requires the court to certify that disclosing the search is likely to jeopardize an investigation, result in the destruction of evidence, or endanger the life of an individual. This legislation also imposes a 90-day limit on secrecy orders, with an extension available if, and only if, the need for secrecy is justified based on arguable facts and approval by a judge. Finally, this legislation gives the individual subject to the search a chance to be heard and a chance to request a copy of the information that was disclosed. Today’s legislation, while not a major overhaul of the ECPA, provides us with an opportunity to address the threat to our constitutional freedoms, not just for elected officials, but for all Americans. These changes, I believe, will bring searches of the cloud more closely in line with the Fourth Amendment searches. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler) for co- leading this bill. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on the issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
“Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6048) to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify delayed notice requirements, and for other purposes, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:”
Official Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6048) to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify delayed notice requirements, and for other purposes, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows:
