A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the February 2000 deployment of the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to an area of potential hostilities and the essential requirements that the battle group and expeditionary unit have received the essential training needed to certify the warfighting proficiency of the forces comprising the battle group and expeditionary unit.

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 4, 1999

Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the Secretary of the Navy should conduct the 13 days of pre-deployment training required to be performed on the Island of Vieques to ensure the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit are free of serious deficiencies in major warfare areas; and (2) the President should not deploy the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group or the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit until he reviews the certifications regarding the readiness of the battle group and the expeditionary unit made by the Commander of the Second Fleet of the Navy and the Commander of the Marine Forces in the Atlantic and determines and so notifies Congress that the battle group and the expeditionary unit are free of serious deficiencies in major warfare areas.

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. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK

Committees

Armed Services Committee

4 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.

Nov 4, 1999
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Nov 4, 1999
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Introduced in Senate · Nov 4, 1999 Formatted Text PDF

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.

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.Res.220 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.Res.220, 106th Congress: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the February 2000 deployment of the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to an area of potential hostilities and the essential requirements that the battle group and expeditionary unit have received the essential training needed to certify the warfighting proficiency of the forces comprising the battle group and expeditionary unit.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/220

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-11-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres220/BILLS-106sres220is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T17:08:45Z. 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.Res.220, 106th Congress: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the February 2000 deployment of the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to an area of potential hostilities and the essential requirements that the battle group and expeditionary unit have received the essential training needed to certify the warfighting proficiency of the forces comprising the battle group and expeditionary unit.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/220

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-11-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres220/BILLS-106sres220is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T17:08:45Z. 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.Res.220, 106th Congress: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the February 2000 deployment of the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to an area of potential hostilities and the essential requirements that the battle group and expeditionary unit have received the essential training needed to certify the warfighting proficiency of the forces comprising the battle group and expeditionary unit.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/220

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-11-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres220/BILLS-106sres220is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T17:08:45Z. 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.Res.220 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.Res.220 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.Res.220, 106th Congress: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the February 2000 deployment of the U.S.S. Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit to an area of potential hostilities and the essential requirements that the battle group and expeditionary unit have received the essential training needed to certify the warfighting proficiency of the forces comprising the battle group and expeditionary unit.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/220

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1999-11-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/106/bills/sres220/BILLS-106sres220is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-14T17:08:45Z. 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.Res.220 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.