Expressing support for the designation of February 14 of each year as International Flower Workers' Day, in acknowledgment of workers in flower-producing countries and to demonstrate the commitment of the United States to practices that respect labor rights in other countries.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2017
Expresses support for: (1) the designation of International Flower Workers' Day to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to practices that respect labor rights in other countries, and (2) the elimination of exploitative labor practices as a key U.S. policy goal.
Urges the governments of Colombia and other flower-producing countries to investigate and respond to the social and environmental impacts of the flower-producing industry. Notes that the Colombian Action Plan Related to Labor Rights, signed on April 7, 2011, has not adequately strengthened or improved working conditions in Colombia.
Recognizes that Colombian flower workers should not suffer harm from free trade but should share in its economic benefits.
Encourages the development and implementation of new measures to uphold and fulfill the strong labor commitments made under the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.118 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.118 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.118 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.118 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.