PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 15, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 27, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Security in Bonding Act of 2012 - Revises requirements related to assets pledged by a surety.
Declares that if another applicable law or regulation permits the acceptance of a bond from a surety that is not subject to specified federal law, and is based on a pledge of assets by the surety, the assets pledged by such surety shall: (1) consist of eligible obligations given as security instead of surety bonds; and (2) be submitted to the government official required to approve or accept the bond, who shall deposit the assets with a depository (the Secretary of the Treasury, a federal reserve bank, or a depository designated by the Secretary).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Comptroller General to study: (1) all instances during the 10-year period before the enactment of this Act in which a surety bond proposed or issued by a surety in connection with a federal project was rejected by a federal contracting officer, or accepted but was later found to have been backed by insufficient collateral or to be otherwise deficient or with respect to which the surety did not perform; (2) the consequences to the federal government, subcontractors, and suppliers of such instances, and (3) the percentages of all federal contracts that were awarded to small disadvantaged businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises as prime contractors in the two-year period before and after the enactment of this Act, and an assessment of its impact upon such percentages.
People & committees
Rep. Hanna, Richard L. [R-NY-24] · R–NY
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 Homeland Security and Governmental 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 H2676-2677)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2676-2677)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3534.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2676-2678)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 322.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-460.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-460.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
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: 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.3534 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.3534 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.3534 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.3534 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.