PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.6629 / 112th Congress

National Child Protection Training Act

Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 4, 2012

National Child Protection Training Act - Directs the Attorney General, through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to establish a program to sustain at least four university, college, or community college affiliated regional training centers in coordination with the National Child Protection Training Center.

Requires the regional training centers to: (1) develop model inter-disciplinary undergraduate curricula on recognizing and responding to cases of child maltreatment that consists of at least a three-course certificate program or minor degree; (2) develop related model graduate curricula for medical schools, law schools, seminaries, and other institutions of higher education that instruct students likely to become child protection professionals or other professionals required by law to report cases of child maltreatment; (3) disseminate such curricula, upon the Attorney General's approval, to community colleges, colleges, university, law schools, medical schools, and other institutions of higher education; (4) develop "laboratory" training facilities that allow for simulated, interactive, and intensive training of students preparing for child protection careers as well as child protection professionals currently in the field; (5) assist communities in developing evidence-based prevention programs; and (6) assist states in developing and maintaining forensic interview training programs.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1] · D–MN

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
  • Education and Workforce Committee
2 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

  2. Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on 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.

  3. Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on 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.

  4. Introduced in House

  5. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.6629 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.6629 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.6629 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.6629 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.

View full prompt & sources