H. Con. Res. 102 (110th)Bill Overview

Support National Day of Human Trafficking Awareness

Concurrent ResolutionCommemorations|Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesCommemorations

Sponsor

Adam B. SchiffD

Cosponsors

Support

Democratic

Introduced

Mar 27, 2007

Discussions

Bill Text

View ↗

Current stageLaw

Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Introduced

Committee

Floor

President

Law

Congressional Activities

01 · The brief

Concurrent ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution expresses Congress' support for observing an annual National Day of Human Trafficking Awareness and encourages efforts to raise awareness and oppose trafficking. It does not create new laws, require federal agencies to act, or provide funding. If both the House and Senate approve it, the resolution records Congress' position but is not sent to the President and is not legally binding.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions must be adopted by both the House and the Senate but are not presented to the President and do not have the force of law. This is a nonbinding statement of congressional sentiment rather than a binding legal change.

This concurrent resolution expresses congressional support for observing an annual National Day of Human Trafficking Awareness (noted as January 11), condemns human trafficking in all forms, calls for education and opposition to traffickers, and emphasizes victim support and international efforts to end trafficking.

Passage80/100

Broad, noncontroversial symbolic resolution historically easy to clear both chambers; minimal policy or fiscal obstacles. Note: concurrent resolution is declarative, not statutory law.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward commemorative concurrent resolution that clearly defines the problem and expresses congressional support for observing a National Day of Human Trafficking Awareness, but it intentionally omits operational, fiscal, and accountability provisions.

Contention15/100

Liberals press for funded victim services and root-cause remedies

02 · What it does

Full Analysis

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%

Likely helpedFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped

Potential benefitIncreased public awareness may raise reporting and identification of trafficking victims.
Potential benefitEncourages training of frontline professionals to better detect and respond to trafficking situations.
Potential benefitPublic endorsement could mobilize NGOs and private donors to expand victim services.

Likely burdened

Potential burdenNon-binding resolution creates no funding, enforcement, or legal changes to combat trafficking.
Federal agenciesMay duplicate existing federal, state, and NGO awareness initiatives without added benefit.
Potential burdenObservance focus could divert attention from policy reforms addressing root economic causes.

03 · Why people split

Full Analysis

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals press for funded victim services and root-cause remedies

Progressive95%

Likely strongly supportive; views the resolution as affirming human rights and condemning exploitation.

Would welcome symbolic recognition but want stronger, funded measures for victims and prevention.

Leans supportive

Centrist80%

Generally supportive; sees the resolution as a bipartisan, low-cost statement condemning trafficking.

Views it as useful for awareness but prefers measurable follow-up actions and clear implementation paths.

Leans supportive

Conservative85%

Likely supportive of condemning trafficking and enhancing enforcement.

Emphasizes prosecution, border security, and victim protection, while wary of provisions that might create incentives for illegal immigration.

Leans supportive

04 · Can it pass?

Full Analysis