PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 29, 2026. 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.10009 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.10009 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.10009 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.10009 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-07-30 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would change when the time limit for bringing criminal charges begins for offenses under sections 201 or 666 of federal criminal law, which the bill describes as bribery or theft offenses concerning public officials or federal funds. The time limit would not begin running until a federal law enforcement agency discovers the offense or receives a report of it.
Bribery or theft offenses concerning public officials or Federal funds
For any offense under sections 201 or 666, the period of limitations shall not begin to run until the offense is discovered by, or reported to, a Federal law enforcement agency.
The bill names itself the Bribery Accountability and Discovery Act, or BAD Act. It would add subsection (c) to section 3282 of title 18, applying the discovery-or-reporting rule to any offense under sections 201 or 666.
This Act may be cited as the Bribery Accountability and Discovery Act or the BAD Act.
Section 3282 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (c) Bribery or theft offenses concerning public officials or Federal funds For any offense under sections 201 or 666, the period of limitations shall not begin to run until the offense is discovered by, or reported to, a Federal law enforcement agency.
The supplied September 29, 2026 source snapshot records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 30, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T08:05:41Z. 2026-07-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-07-30: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-07-30. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials, including earmark disclosures and committee reports.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment, special exemption, or carve-out was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI