PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-269.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 14, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 19, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012 - Amends the federal criminal code to increase the maximum fine for economic espionage (i.e., stealing or obtaining, duplicating or conveying, or buying or possessing trade secrets without authorization, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent) committed by individuals (from $500,000 to $5 million) or by organizations (from $10 million to $10 million or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization).
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to offenses relating to the transmission of a stolen trade secret outside of the United States or economic espionage in order to reflect the intent of Congress that penalties for such offenses reflect the seriousness of, and potential and actual harm caused by, such offenses and provide adequate deterrence. Directs the Commission to: (1) consider the extent to which such guidelines and statements appropriately account for the simple misappropriation of a trade secret; (2) consider whether additional enhancements are appropriate to account for any transmission of a stolen trade secret outside of the United States and any such transmission that is committed for the benefit of a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (3) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives, guidelines and statements, and related federal statutes.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-269.
Became Public Law No: 112-269.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H7559; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/30/2012 H7453-7454)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H7559; text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR 12/30/2012 H7453-7454)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Scott (VA) 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 considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6029.
Mr. Smith (TX) moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H7453-7455)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8229-8230)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 493.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 7/31/2012 H5506)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/31/2012 H5506)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5619)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Scott (VA) 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. 6029.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5506-5507)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 443.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-610.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-610.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
Source last updated: Jul 2, 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.6029 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.6029 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.6029 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.6029 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.