PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 25, 2010
International Cybercrime Reporting and Cooperation Act - Directs the President to report annually to Congress regarding: (1) foreign countries’ use of information and communications technologies (ICT) in critical infrastructure, cybercrime based in each country, the adequacy of each country’s legal and law enforcement systems addressing cybercrime, and online protection of consumers and commerce; (2) multilateral efforts to prevent and investigate cybercrime, including U.S. actions to promote such multilateral efforts; and (3) countries for which action plans have been developed.
Directs the President to give priority for assistance to improve legal, judicial, and enforcement capabilities with respect to cybercrime to countries with low ICT levels of development or utilization in their critical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, and financial industries.
Directs the President to develop an action plan (with legislative, institutional, or enforcement benchmarks) and annual compliance assessment for each country determined to be a country of cyber concern: (1) from which there is a pattern of cybercrime incidents against the U.S. government, private U.S. entities, or other U.S. persons; and (2) whose government is uncooperative with efforts to combat cybercrime.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Urges the President to take restrictive actions against a country that has not complied with the appropriate benchmarks with respect to: (1) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC); (2) the Export-Import Bank of the United States; (3) multilateral development financing; (4) the Trade and Development Agency; (5) preferential trade programs; and (6) foreign assistance.
Authorizes the President to waive the requirements to develop an action plan or make a determination of cyber concern if in U.S. national interest.
Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) designate a high-level Department of State employee to coordinate anti-cybercrime activities; and (2) assign an employee to have primary responsibility for cybercrime policy in each country or region significant to U.S. anti-cybercrime efforts.
People & committees
Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-11] · D–NY
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 Trade.
Referred to House Financial Services
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Foreign Affairs
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 21, 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.4962 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.4962 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.4962 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.4962 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.