PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 11, 2012
Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2012 - Amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to revise requirements relating to the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program to direct the Attorney General to: (1) award competitive grants to assist nonprofit organizations in paying for the costs of locally based, proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; and (2) give a preference for such grants to national nonprofit organizations that have experience working with patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and their families (currently, the Attorney General is directed to award a single grant to a national voluntary organization to operate the Program). Authorizes appropriations for such grants through FY2017.
People & committees
Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5790)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5790)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2800.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5790-5791)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 469.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-651.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-651.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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 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 H.R.2800 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.2800 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.2800 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.2800 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.