PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
Sustainable, Livable And Green (S.L.A.G.) Highway Construction Act of 2012 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to establish in the Office of Pavement Technology of the Federal Highway Administration the position of Recovered Mineral Component Ombudsman to: (1) act as a liaison between the states and the DOT on federally funded highway projects; (2) encourage states to use recovered mineral component (RMC) to drive down costs and be more environmentally sensitive; and (3) provide information on projects that use RMC, its safety, and training and educational seminars on RMC environmental benefits.
Urges the Secretary to amend comprehensive procurement guidelines for federally-funded asphalt and concrete highway projects to include specifications that encourage the use of such RMCs as ground granulated blast furnace slag, blast furnace slag aggregate, and steel furnace slag aggregate.
Requires the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish standards to ensure that the use of RMCs does not violate the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or any other environmental law.
People & committees
Rep. Clarke, Hansen [D-MI-13] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: Aug 14, 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.6492 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.6492 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.6492 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.6492 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.