PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 11, 2017
Human Trafficking Prioritization Act
This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking of the Department of State will be more effective in carrying out duties mandated by Congress in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and can do so without an increase in either personnel or budget, if: (1) the Office's status is changed to that of a Bureau within State; and (2) the Office is headed by an Assistant Secretary with direct access to the Secretary of State, rather than an Ambassador-at-Large.
The bill amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to change the status of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to that of the Bureau to Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
State must submit to Congress a report detailing:
for each current Assistant Secretary of State position, the exact title and length of designation as Assistant Secretary and whether that designation was legislatively mandated or authorized and, if so, the relevant statutory citation; and whether State intends to designate one of the Assistant Secretary of State positions as the Assistant Secretary of State to Combat Trafficking in Persons and the reasons for that decision.
The bill prohibits subsequent inclusion for more than one consecutive year on the special watch list of countries whose compliance with minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking is full, partial, or insignificant of any country that:
was included on the list for four consecutive years after enactment of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and
was subsequently included on the exclusive Tier 3 list of countries not making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance with such standards.
No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for diplomatic and consular programs to carry out this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.436 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.436 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.436 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.436 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.