PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-212.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 11, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on July 23, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Bridgeport Indian Colony Land Trust, Health, and Economic Development Act of 2012 - Declares approximately 39.36 acres of federal land in Mono County, California, to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Bridgeport Indian Colony.
Prohibits class II or III gaming from being conducted on such lands.
Retains the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the oversight and renewal of all easements and rights-of-way with the Bridgeport Public Utility District that exist on the date of this Act's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-212.
Became Public Law No: 112-212.
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 S7751)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7751)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 534.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
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 H5096)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5096)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2467.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5096-5098)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 444.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-611.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-611.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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: Jun 20, 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.2467 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.2467 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.2467 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.2467 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.