PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 2, 1999
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should ensure that full and open competition continues in the selection of companies to transport U.S. military cargo between the United States and Iceland in accordance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iceland to Facilitate Their Defense Relationship and Related Memorandum of Understanding in Implementation of the Treaty, signed September 24, 1986.Declares that neither the Secretary of State nor any other official of the United States should, without the advice and consent of the Senate, seek to amend, interpret, or alter the administration of the treaty or memorandum of understanding in any manner (through limitations on eligibility or otherwise) that: (1) would preclude companies qualified to conduct business under the laws of the United States or the Republic of Iceland from submitting offers for, being awarded, or performing such a transportation contract; or (2) would otherwise defeat the purpose of enhancing competition among United States-flag carriers or among Icelandic shipping companies under the treaty or memorandum.
People & committees
Sen. Torricelli, Robert G. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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.