PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-85.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 3, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on December 14, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Designates the property between the U.S. courthouse and the Ed Jones Building located at 109 South Highland Avenue in Jackson, Tennessee, as the "M.D. Anderson Plaza."
Permits the West Tennessee Health Care Foundation to install a historical marker and statue in the Plaza recognizing M.D. Anderson. Prohibits the expenditure of any federal funds in connection with such marker and statue.
Requires the Foundation to submit to the Administrator of General Services (GSA) a marker and statue design for GSA approval.
People & committees
Rep. Fincher, Stephen Lee [R-TN-8] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-85.
Became Public Law No: 112-85.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8782)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8782)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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): 418 - 1 (Roll no. 930). (text: CR 12/12/2011 H8343)
House roll call 930 · 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): 418 - 1 (Roll no. 930).(text: CR 12/12/2011 H8343)
House roll call 930 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8940-8941)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Fleischmann 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1264.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8343-8344)
Mr. Fleischmann moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 97.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 112-325.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 112-325.
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E565-566)
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: Apr 7, 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.1264 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.1264 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.1264 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.1264 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.