PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 17, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2008 - Amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program through FY2015 and to revise program requirements to: (1) provide for competitive grants to nonprofit organizations to assist in locating missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; (2) expand such program to include locating other missing elderly individuals; (3) require the Attorney General to solicit grants for program applications in the Federal Register and on the Department of Justice (DOJ) website; and (4) establish a preference in awarding grants to national nonprofit organizations that have a direct link to patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and their families (currently, grants may be awarded to only such organizations).
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 9/15/2008 H8097)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 9/15/2008 H8097)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8368-8369)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Murphy, Tim objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6503.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8097-8098)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 547.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-846.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-846.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: 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 H.R.6503 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.6503 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.6503 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.6503 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.