Recommending that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 17, 2004

Recommends that: (1) the amount of funds appropriated for ballistic missile defense programs for FY 2005 should be capped at FY 2004 levels; (2) any funds appropriated for such programs for FY 2005 should not be used to deploy a ground-based, strategic, midcourse, ballistic missile defense system that has not met operational testing requirements demonstrating the maturity of all critical technologies; and (3) funds appropriated for port security programs within the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2005 should be increased by $500 million over FY 2004 levels.

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

Rep. Harman, Jane [D-CA-36] · D–CA

Committees

Armed Services Committee
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

0 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.

May 25, 2004
Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
May 18, 2004
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
May 18, 2004
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E901-902)
May 17, 2004
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
May 17, 2004
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
May 17, 2004
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
May 17, 2004
Introduced in House
May 17, 2004
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Introduced in House · May 17, 2004 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

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: Jun 6, 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428, 108th Congress: Recommending that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/428

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2004-05-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/108/bills/hconres428/BILLS-108hconres428ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:48Z. 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428, 108th Congress: Recommending that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/428

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2004-05-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/108/bills/hconres428/BILLS-108hconres428ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:48Z. 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428, 108th Congress: Recommending that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/428

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2004-05-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/108/bills/hconres428/BILLS-108hconres428ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:48Z. 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428 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 H.Con.Res.428, 108th Congress: Recommending that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/428

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2004-05-17.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/108/bills/hconres428/BILLS-108hconres428ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:48Z. 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 H.Con.Res.428 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.