PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
S.Res.208 / 106th Congress

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States policy toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, in light of the Alliance's April 1999 Washington Summit and the European Union's June 1999 Cologne Summit.

Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 28, 1999

Declares that the Senate: (1) believes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should remain the primary institution through which European and North American allies address security issues of transatlantic concern; (2) endorses NATO's decision to launch the Defense Capabilities Initiative, intended to improve the defense capabilities of the European Allies; (3) acknowledges European Union (EU) resolve to have autonomy so it can approve military action where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged; and (4) calls upon NATO and the EU to promulgate together during their respective meetings in 1999 principles that will strengthen the transatlantic partnership, reinforce unity within NATO, and harmonize their roles in transatlantic affairs.Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the EU should make it clear that it would take an autonomous mission through its European Security and Defense Identity only after NATO had been offered the opportunity to undertake that mission but had referred it to EU for action; (2) failure of the European allies of the United States to achieve the goals established through the Defense Capabilities Initiative would weaken support for the Alliance in the United States; (3) the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense should encourage NATO allies to commit the resources necessary to upgrade their capabilities to rapidly deploy forces over long distances, sustain operations for extended periods of time, and operate jointly with the United States in high-density conflicts, thus making them effective partners of the United States; (4) the EU must implement its Cologne Summit decisions concerning its Common Foreign and Security Policy in a manner that will ensure that non-Western European Union NATO allies, including Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey, and the United States, will not be discriminated against, but will be fully involved when the EU addresses issues affecting their security interests; and (5) the EU's implementation of its Cologne Summit decisions should not promote a decline in the military resources that European allies contribute to NATO, but should instead promote the complete fulfillment of their respective force commitments to the Alliance.

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.

Who introduced it

Sen. Roth Jr., William V. [R-DE] · R–DE

Committees

  • Foreign Relations Committee
7 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

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

  1. Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

  2. Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

  3. Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S14334-14335)

  4. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 377.

  5. Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.

  6. Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.

  7. Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.

  8. Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

  9. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S13430-13431)

  10. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

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

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

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.Res.208 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 S.Res.208 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 S.Res.208 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 S.Res.208 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