S. Res. 150 (119th)Bill Overview

The goals and ideals of "Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month" and expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should raise awareness of the harm caused by international…

International Affairs|International Affairs
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Apr 1, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text: CR S2097)

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This Senate resolution designates April 1–30, 2025, as “Countering International Parental Child Abduction Month,” calls for raising awareness of international parental child abduction harms, cites statistics and relevant laws, urges use of existing tools (including the Hague Convention and the Sean and David Goldman Act), and encourages the State Department to pursue bilateral agreements and other measures to prevent and resolve abduction cases.

Passage5/100

As a simple Senate resolution it is non‑binding and does not create law; symbolic measures routinely pass the originating chamber but do not become law.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed symbolic resolution: it clearly defines the problem, cites relevant laws and prior actions, and appropriately limits itself to recognizing an awareness month and urging continued executive attention. The resolution does not create obligations, appropriate for a commemorative instrument.

Contention12/100

Symbolic value vs. demand for concrete funding and metrics

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
States · Federal agenciesTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersRaises public awareness potentially increasing reporting and prevention efforts by parents and agencies.
  • StatesUrges State Department use of existing legal tools to negotiate agreements with non‑Hague countries.
  • Federal agenciesReinforces interagency programs like passport alerts and Prevent Abduction coordination at ports of entry.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersNon‑binding resolution creates no funding or legal obligations, limiting practical policy impact.
  • Targeted stakeholdersNaming noncompliant countries could complicate bilateral diplomacy and case cooperation in some jurisdictions.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay raise public expectations for executive action without authorizing additional resources or statutory change.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Symbolic value vs. demand for concrete funding and metrics
Progressive95%

Generally supportive, viewing the resolution as a needed acknowledgment of harm to children and families and a call for stronger prevention and return efforts.

Will stress funding for victim services, equity for multicultural families, and safeguards for due process in custody disputes.

Leans supportive
Centrist90%

Supportive but pragmatic: views the resolution as a useful, nonbinding statement that highlights a transnational problem.

Wants measurable follow-through, cost estimates, and targeted diplomacy rather than grandstanding.

Leans supportive
Conservative80%

Generally favorable because it emphasizes law enforcement, criminalization of parental kidnapping, and protecting children.

Will emphasize strict enforcement, using existing statutes, and preventing diplomatic overreach or unfunded federal expansions.

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 likelihood5/100

As a simple Senate resolution it is non‑binding and does not create law; symbolic measures routinely pass the originating chamber but do not become law.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether a House companion resolution will be introduced
  • Floor time and scheduling priorities in each chamber
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

Symbolic value vs. demand for concrete funding and metrics

As a simple Senate resolution it is non‑binding and does not create law; symbolic measures routinely pass the originating chamber but do no…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-constructed symbolic resolution: it clearly defines the problem, cites relevant laws and prior actions, and appropriately limits itself to recognizing an aw…

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