PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-71.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 19, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on December 6, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Grants the consent of Congress to the amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State Development Agency by legislation enacted by the states of Missouri and Illinois requiring bonds issued by such Agency to mature not more than 40 years (currently, 30 years) from date of issuance.
People & committees
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-71.
Became Public Law No: 112-71.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate bill by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8466; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S8466)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate bill by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8466; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S8466)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8169-8170)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8169-8170)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S.J. Res. 22.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8169-8172)
Mr. Gohmert moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S6007)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S6007)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6007)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6007)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4161)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.J.Res.22 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.J.Res.22 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.J.Res.22 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.J.Res.22 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.