How People Voted
23% For, 77% Against
13 votes cast
Take Action
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 3796, The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012
- This item is from the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Version saved on January 20, 2012, 06:30:07, by webmaster:
H.R. 3796 would reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Detailed Summary
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 1/19/2012: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Costs: $ per
and increases their $ share of the national debt by $.
(source: Congressional Budget Office)
Learn More
Visitor Comments
publion
(logged-in user) January 25, 2012, 7:45pm (report abuse)This Bill requests very substantial sums for the maintenance of programs for which there exists scant evidence of effectiveness and, indeed, recent Studies indicate few of them work effectively at all.
I also note that the Bill offers no justifications nor references any justifying information. Yet even the 'parent' Adam Walsh Act of 2006 ordered a rather thorough-going effectiveness Report to be submitted to both Congress "and through the Internet to the public" (Sec. 634, if I recall correctly) by the Attorney-General NLT July, 2011.
One suspects that this omission is not unintentional.
Thus, while this Bill requests substantial monies (and its primary sponsor sits on the Judiciary Committee to which it has been referred), and while numerous governmental and "private" entities will benefit from the requested monies, yet the omission of justifying assertions or claims suggests strongly a great deal of 'pork'.
I would require justification before approval.
Richard Pruett
December 24, 2012, 5:12am (report abuse)I agree use that money to prevent school massacres, the way it's being used now does more harm than good, it's almost as if our law makers have a lack of impulse control, they rush to push laws through that seem like a good idea in the heat of the moment, it's like an individual making a rash decision, only on a much larger scale.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
WashingtonWatch.com Digest – August 6, 2012
This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of August 6, 2012. Subscribe (free!) here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: The TSA Should Follow the Law —Take Action! More than a year ago...