PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 25, 2017
Nuclear Cruise Missile Reconsideration Act of 2017
This bill prohibits the obligation or expenditure of more than specified amounts by the Department of Defense (DOD) on development of the long-range standoff weapon or any other nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missile, or by the Department of Energy on the life extension program for the W80-4 warhead, until DOD submits to specified congressional committees a Nuclear Posture Review that includes an assessment of:
the anticipated capabilities of the long-range standoff weapon to hold targets at risk beyond other already existing and planned nuclear-capable delivery systems;
the anticipated ability of such weapon to elude adversary integrated air and missile defenses compared to the B-21 bomber; and
the anticipated effect of such weapon on strategic stability relative to other nuclear-armed countries, on the offensive nuclear weapons capabilities and programs of other nuclear-armed countries, on the response of other nuclear-armed countries to proposals to decrease or halt the growth of their nuclear stockpiles, and on the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E722)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 4, 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.R.2667 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.R.2667 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.R.2667 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.R.2667 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.