Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should pursue negotiations with Russia as quickly as possible to achieve a START III agreement that reduces the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to the lowest possible level, and no more than 2,000 each for the United States and Russia.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 4, 1994
Commends President Clinton and Russian President Yeltsin for agreeing in the summit that was held on September 27-28, 1994, to deactivate enough nuclear forces, once START II is ratified, to reach the levels provided years earlier than the treaty requires and to intensify dialogue regarding further reductions of remaining nuclear forces. Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should: (1) pursue negotiations with Russia as quickly as possible to achieve a START III agreement that reduces the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to the lowest possible level, but in no case more than 2,000 each for the United States and Russia; (2) discuss with other countries with nuclear capabilities the possibility of future negotiations to reduce the levels of nuclear weapons; and (3) initiate negotiations with Russia to seek to dismantle all tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian and U.S. arsenals.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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 H.Con.Res.306 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 H.Con.Res.306 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 H.Con.Res.306 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 H.Con.Res.306 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.