PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-236.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 28, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012 - Amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to apply the prohibition against the theft of trade secrets to a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce (currently, a trade secret that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce).
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-236.
Became Public Law No: 112-236.
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 to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 388 - 4 (Roll no. 632). (text: CR H6848)
House roll call 632 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 388 - 4 (Roll no. 632).(text: CR H6848)
House roll call 632 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6854-6855)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 3642.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6848-6849)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6978-6979; text as passed Senate: CR S6979)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6978-6979; text as passed Senate: CR S6979)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.3642 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 S.3642 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 S.3642 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 S.3642 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.