PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 15, 2013
Confidential Informant Accountability Act of 2013 - Directs the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of the Treasury to report biannually to Congress on all serious crimes, authorized and unauthorized, committed by informants maintained by the respective law enforcement agencies of such Departments (the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF]).
Defines a "serious crime" as any serious violent felony or drug offense (as such terms are defined in the federal criminal code) or any offense of racketeering, bribery, child pornography, obstruction of justice, or perjury that an agent or employee of the relevant law enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to believe an informant has committed.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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.265 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.265 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.265 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.265 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.