PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-237.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 18, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate passed version is repeated here.)
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to revise the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program to: (1) limit grants by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to no more than 75% of project costs, and (2) authorize the appropriation of the amount appropriated for FY2009 for each of FY2013-FY2017.
(Sec. 2) Designates: (1) the EPA headquarters located at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC, known as the Ariel Rios Building, as the "William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building," (2) the federal building and U.S. courthouse located at 200 East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, known as the George Mahon Federal Building, as the "George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon Federal Building," and (3) the federal building currently known as Federal Office Building 8, located at 200 C Street SW, Washington, DC, as the "Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building."
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 5) Makes the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and provisions of the federal criminal code prohibiting importation of injurious animals inapplicable to any water transfer by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority using only closed conveyance systems from the Lake Texoma raw water intake structure to treatment facilities at which all zebra mussels are extirpated and removed from the transferred water.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery in Richmond County, North Carolina, to the state of North Carolina to be used by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as a component of the fish and wildlife management program of the state.
Requires the state to allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to use such property for the propagation of any critically important aquatic resource held in public trust to address the specific restoration or recovery needs of such resource.
Requires reversion of the property if it is used for any purpose other than as described above.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-237.
Became Public Law No: 112-237.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H6855-6856)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H6855-6856)
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H6855-6856)
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Natural Resources discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Committee on Transportation discharged.
Mr. Denham asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider. (consideration: CR H6855)
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 S8088-8089; text as passed Senate: CR S8088-8089)
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 S8088-8089; text as passed Senate: CR S8088-8089)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3687 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.3687 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.3687 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.3687 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.