PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-265.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 14, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 17, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG), at the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a state or political subdivision, to assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use, and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings.
Defines "mass killings" as three or more killings in a single incident.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the AG to pay rewards of up to $3 million (currently, $2 million), subject to exceptions, for assistance to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to permit the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), at the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a state or political subdivision and through deployment of the Secret Service or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use, and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings.
Requires that any assistance provided under this Act be presumed to be within the scope of federal office or employment.
People & committees
Rep. Gowdy, Trey [R-SC-4] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-265.
Became Public Law No: 112-265.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H7560; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/31/2012 H7491-7492)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H7560; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/31/2012 H7491-7492)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Scott (VA) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2076.
Mr. Gowdy moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H7491-7495)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8089; text: CR S8089)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8089)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 236.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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): 358 - 9 (Roll no. 699). (text: CR H6046)
House roll call 699 · 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): 358 - 9 (Roll no. 699).(text: CR H6046)
House roll call 699 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6050-6051)
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. 2076.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6046-6047)
Mr. Gowdy moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 121.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-186.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-186.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
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: Aug 10, 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.2076 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.2076 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.2076 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.2076 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.