PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOE.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 24, 1999
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the priority of the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program should be the safety and security of the existing stockpile, while maintaining sufficient weapon reliability to ensure the arsenal's deterrent effect and not attempting to develop new weapons; (2) the stockpile can be maintained with a program that is far smaller, less expensive, and does not require facilities or experiments that are likely to be used for warhead design or development; and (3) the Secretary of Energy should redirect the Department of Energy program for custodianship of the nuclear weapons arsenal toward less costly, less provocative methods that are consistent with U.S. treaty obligations.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOE.
Executive Comment Requested from DOE.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E554)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Jun 6, 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 H.Con.Res.74 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 H.Con.Res.74 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 H.Con.Res.74 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 H.Con.Res.74 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.