PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-270.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 14, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012 - Extends through FY2019 the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to use power revenues collected pursuant to the Colorado River Storage Project Act for annual base funding of endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins.
Sets forth restrictions with respect to the indirect cost recovery rate for any transfer of funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from another federal agency for the purpose of funding any activity associated with such programs.
Prohibits the use of federal funds to cover expenses incurred by an employee or detailee of the Department of the Interior to travel to any location (other than the field office to which that individual is otherwise assigned) to advocate, lobby, or attend meetings that advocate or lobby for such programs.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-270.
Became Public Law No: 112-270.
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. (text: CR 12/31/2012 S8609)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR 12/31/2012 S8609)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 12/31/2012 S8609)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 12/31/2012 S8609)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 H6074)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6074)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6060.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6074-6075)
Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 484.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-672.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-672.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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: Sep 8, 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.6060 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.6060 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.6060 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.6060 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.