H. Con. Res. 40 (111th)Bill Overview

Designate National Brain Injury Awareness Month

Concurrent ResolutionHealth|Commemorative events and holidaysDisability and paralysis
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Democratic
Introduced
Feb 4, 2009
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Concurrent ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution expresses Congress's recognition of how traumatic brain injury affects Americans and supports designating a National Brain Injury Awareness Month. It lists facts about TBI, encourages enhanced public awareness, and asks the President to issue a proclamation. In practice it does not create new law, spend money, or require agencies to act; it simply states Congress's view and encourages action.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions must be agreed to by both the House and Senate but are not sent to the President and do not have the force of law. This resolution is therefore non-binding and mainly symbolic.

This concurrent resolution recognizes traumatic brain injury (TBI) as a major public-health concern, cites incidence and cost statistics, and supports designating a National Brain Injury Awareness Month.

It highlights TBI’s impact on civilians and military personnel, notes prevention potential, and encourages the President to proclaim an awareness month.

Passage0/100

Concurrent resolutions are non‑binding and do not create law, though symbolic adoption by both chambers is likely.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill operates as a straightforward commemorative concurrent resolution that clearly states the problem and seeks public recognition and a presidential proclamation, with appropriately minimal implementation detail and no statutory or fiscal changes.

Contention15/100

Progressives emphasize follow-up funding and service expansions

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
VeteransFederal agencies

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

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases public recognition of TBI, potentially improving prevention and safety behaviors.
  • VeteransRaises awareness of veterans' TBI needs, which could improve referrals and services recognition.
  • Potential benefitProvides a focal point for advocacy groups to organize education and fundraising campaigns.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenIs largely symbolic and does not allocate funds or create enforceable new programs.
  • Federal agenciesCould create public expectations for federal action without specifying resource commitments.
  • Potential burdenAwareness alone may not produce measurable reductions in TBI incidence without follow-up policies.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize follow-up funding and service expansions
Progressive85%

Likely strongly supportive of the awareness goal and sympathetic to veterans and disabled civilians.

Sees value in public education and stigma reduction but will note the resolution is symbolic and urges follow-up funding and services.

Leans supportive
Centrist90%

Generally favorable as a low-cost, bipartisan public-health recognition.

Views it as noncontroversial but would prefer measurable follow-up actions and clarity about resources for affected populations.

Leans supportive
Conservative75%

Likely supportive of awareness and veterans’ recognition, but cautious about any downstream pressure for federal spending or new programs.

Comfortable with a declaratory resolution if it avoids mandates.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood0/100

Concurrent resolutions are non‑binding and do not create law, though symbolic adoption by both chambers is likely.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether the Senate will consider the concurrent resolution promptly
  • Whether companion recognition receives bipartisan floor time competition
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize follow-up funding and service expansions

Concurrent resolutions are non‑binding and do not create law, though symbolic adoption by both chambers is likely.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill operates as a straightforward commemorative concurrent resolution that clearly states the problem and seeks public recognition and a presidential proclamation, with a…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis