PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 28, 2010
Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2010 - Directs the Attorney General to establish the Organized Retail Theft Investigation and Prosecution Unit to: (1) investigate and prosecute those instances of organized retail theft over which the Department of Justice (DOJ) has jurisdiction; (2) assist state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting organized retail theft; and (3) consult with key stakeholders, including retailers and online market places, to obtain information about instances of and trends in organized retail theft.
Provides that the Unit shall include representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Secret Service, the United States Postal Inspection Services, prosecutors, and any other necessary personnel.
Defines "organized retail theft" as: (1) the obtaining of retail merchandise by illegal means to resell or otherwise place such merchandise back into the stream of commerce; or (2) aiding or abetting the commission of, or conspiring to commit, such theft.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress and make available to the public on the DOJ website a report containing recommendations on how retailers, online businesses, and law enforcement agencies can help prevent and combat organized retail theft .
Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H7164)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7164)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5932.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7164-7168)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.5932 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.5932 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.5932 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.5932 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.