PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 18, 2011
White House Conference on Autism Act of 2011 - Requires the President, by December 31, 2012, to call the White House Conference on Autism (to be convened within 18 months of the selection of a Policy Committee) to make fundamental policy recommendations on ways to combat the autism epidemic in the United States.
Sets forth as purposes of the Conference to: (1) galvanize a national effort to find the underlying causes of autism, (2) identify viable solutions and valuable services to help autistic individuals and their families, (3) bring together the best scientific minds to chart a comprehensive research agenda, (4) bring together parents of autistic children and leaders in the fields of education and social services to begin a national dialogue on the challenges faced by these children and their families, (5) highlight emerging and innovative programs that effectively serve the needs of autistic children and adults, and (6) review the effectiveness of existing legislation and programs that provide autism research services and develop recommendations for legislative action for improvements.
People & committees
Rep. Burton, Dan [R-IN-5] · R–IN
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 Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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.3489 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.3489 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.3489 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.3489 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.