PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 18, 2012
Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Research Act of 2012 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to carry out a national campaign to increase public awareness and knowledge of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, including through: (1) the dissemination of information on the definition of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia and on good neonatal care of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia patients, (2) outreach to minority populations regarding Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, and (3) the promotion of good prenatal care and ultrasound to detect Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia in utero.
Requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to evaluate the amount of federal assistance provided for Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia research at NIH to determine whether funding levels are adequate.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Director should consider allocating funds and other resources for Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia research.
People & committees
Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5135-5136)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.3396 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.3396 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.3396 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.3396 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.