H. Con. Res. 52 (110th)Bill Overview

Support and Promote American Heart Month

Concurrent ResolutionHealth|Access to health careAgriculture and Food
Cosponsors
Support
Unknown
Introduced
Jan 31, 2007
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

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

This resolution expresses Congress's support for American Heart Month and encourages awareness, prevention, and healthy habits. It asks state and territorial leaders to issue proclamations, commends organizations and people working on heart disease, and highlights goals for reducing heart disease. It does not create new law, spend money, or require action by the President or anyone else; it is a formal statement of Congress's views.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions are adopted by both the House and the Senate but are not sent to the President and do not have the force of law. They are used to express the sense of Congress or to coordinate actions between the two chambers, not to create binding legal obligations.

This concurrent resolution recognizes February as American Heart Month and supports its goals.

It encourages state and territorial governors to issue proclamations, commends organizations and individuals fighting heart disease, and promotes awareness, prevention, research, and access to medical treatment.

The resolution lists major and modifiable risk factors and urges healthy behaviors identified by the HealthierUS Initiative.

Passage85/100

Symbolic, narrow, and nonbinding content makes adoption by both chambers highly likely absent procedural delays.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed commemorative resolution: it defines the public-health problem clearly, uses standard nonbinding mechanisms appropriate to a symbolic expression, references the relevant prior congressional authorization for Presidential proclamations, and keeps execution and resource expectations minimal and proportionate.

Contention10/100

Liberals want concrete funding and access measures; conservatives prefer voluntary approaches

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governments · Federal agenciesLocal governments

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

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases public awareness about heart disease and prevention through a focused national month.
  • Local governmentsEncourages state and local proclamations that can mobilize community outreach and screenings.
  • Federal agenciesAffirms federal recognition that may legitimize and amplify nonprofit and private-sector campaigns.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenProvides no funding or mandated programs, making practical effects primarily symbolic.
  • Potential burdenLacks measurable goals or accountability mechanisms to track health outcome changes.
  • Local governmentsEffectiveness depends on voluntary state and local actions, causing uneven implementation.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals want concrete funding and access measures; conservatives prefer voluntary approaches
Progressive95%

Generally supportive; welcomes emphasis on prevention, research, and recognition of disparities.

Views the resolution as a useful awareness tool but insufficient without concrete funding and access-expanding measures.

Likely to press for follow-up legislation or appropriations targeting high-risk communities and research.

Leans supportive
Centrist90%

Supportive of the resolution's awareness and prevention goals but pragmatic about its limited policy effect.

Values bipartisan, low-cost statements that promote screenings and healthy behaviors while wanting measurable outcomes and fiscal responsibility for any follow-on programs.

Leans supportive
Conservative80%

Likely supportive of awareness and personal-responsibility messaging, and favorable to honoring healthcare workers.

Generally sees the resolution as appropriate symbolic federal recognition but is cautious about any implication of expanded federal programs or 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 likelihood85/100

Symbolic, narrow, and nonbinding content makes adoption by both chambers highly likely absent procedural delays.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Senate committee scheduling and floor time
  • Potential procedural holds or unrelated amendments
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

Liberals want concrete funding and access measures; conservatives prefer voluntary approaches

Symbolic, narrow, and nonbinding content makes adoption by both chambers highly likely absent procedural delays.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed commemorative resolution: it defines the public-health problem clearly, uses standard nonbinding mechanisms appropriate to a symbolic expression…

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