S.Con.Res.20 / 110th Congress

A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

S.Con.Res.20 through Congress

S.Con.Res.20 keeps its number as it moves between the House and Senate.

SenateMar 15, 2007Agreed to the resolution82–16View vote

Major milestones in the imported record. See all actions.

Latest House action · Mar 16, 2007

Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

All House actions on S.Con.Res.20 Read the House text

Separate related House measures (1)

These are different measures identified as related by Congress.gov. Their text and outcomes may differ; they are not the House stage of S.Con.Res.20.

Related House measure: H.Con.Res.64 Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Mar 15, 2007

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Expresses the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing assigned missions.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Gregg, Judd [R-NH] · R–NH

Committees

Armed Services Committee

16 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Mar 16, 2007
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Mar 16, 2007
Received in the House.
Mar 15, 2007
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Mar 15, 2007
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 82 - 16. Record Vote Number: 77. (text: CR S3188)
Senate roll call 77 · Individual votes
Mar 15, 2007
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 82 - 16. Record Vote Number: 77.(text: CR S3188)
Senate roll call 77 · Individual votes
Mar 15, 2007
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S3188)
Mar 15, 2007
Submitted in the Senate. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3226-3227)
Mar 15, 2007
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Referred in House · Mar 16, 2007 Formatted Text PDF
Agreed to Senate · Mar 15, 2007 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML
Engrossed in Senate · Mar 15, 2007 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

HCONRES 64 · Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions.

Source last updated: Jun 6, 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 S.Con.Res.20 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

Discuss S.Con.Res.20, 110th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/20

Text version to examine: Referred in House · 2007-03-16.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/sconres20/BILLS-110sconres20rfh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:52Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.Con.Res.20 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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

Discuss S.Con.Res.20, 110th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/20

Text version to examine: Referred in House · 2007-03-16.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/sconres20/BILLS-110sconres20rfh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:52Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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

Discuss S.Con.Res.20, 110th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/20

Text version to examine: Referred in House · 2007-03-16.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/sconres20/BILLS-110sconres20rfh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:52Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.Con.Res.20, 110th Congress: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American Troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned mission.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/20

Text version to examine: Referred in House · 2007-03-16.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/110/bills/sconres20/BILLS-110sconres20rfh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:52Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.Con.Res.20 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.