PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S16031-16032)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 25, 2003
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the Secretary of Defense should reconsider the mandatory nature of the anthrax and smallpox vaccine immunization program pending the development of new and better vaccines that are under development; (2) the Secretary and Board for Correction of Military Records should reconsider adverse actions already taken or intended to be taken against servicemembers for refusing to accept the anthrax or smallpox vaccine; (3) the Secretary of Defense and the intelligence community should reevaluate the threat of anthrax and smallpox attacks on troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; and (4) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should assess those adverse events being reported with respect to the anthrax and smallpox vaccines, research causal relationships, and estimate a future cost to the Department to treat these conditions.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
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 Armed Services. (text of measure as introduced: CR S16031-16032)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S16032-16034)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
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 14, 2025. 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.Res.278 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.Res.278 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.Res.278 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.Res.278 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.