PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3202 / 104th Congress

Sensible Military Spending Act of 1996

Referred to the House Committee on National Security.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 29, 1996

Sensible Military Spending Act of 1996 - Limits the fiscal year budget for activities within budget function 050 (military spending) to $245 billion for FY 1997, with annual $10 billion reductions in such amounts through FY 2000. Limits such budget to $210 billion in FY 2001. Prohibits the Secretary of Defense, beginning in FY 1997, from spending more than $1.25 billion during a fiscal year for ballistic missile defense research and development. Prohibits the Secretary from: (1) procuring more than 20 bombers under the B-2 aircraft program; (2) obligating any funds to subsidize the marketing or financing of the sale of conventional arms to another nation; (3) procuring any additional vessels in the Seawolf attack submarine class; or (4) procuring any additional Trident II D-5 nuclear submarines. Prohibits the amount of funds expended during FY 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter on: (1) the new attack submarine from exceeding ten percent of its FY 1996 amount; (2) the F-22 advanced tactical fighter program from exceeding 25 percent of its FY 1996 amount; and (3) foreign intelligence activities from exceeding 90 percent of its FY 1996 amount. Directs the Secretary to cancel or terminate the: (1) Navy's new aircraft carrier program; (2) procurement of new MILSTAR satellites; (3) procurement of C-17 cargo aircraft; and (4) anti-satellite weapons program. Directs the Secretary to achieve any additional savings necessary to reach the military spending limits required under this Act by reducing the active duty force structure and by the consolidation of bases and laboratories, with conditions. States that the Secretary of Energy: (1) shall cancel the tritium production program; (2) may not obligate funds after the date of enactment of this Act for technologies used to separate fissile components; (3) beginning with FY 1997, may not spend more than $50 million during a fiscal year for nuclear test site readiness; (4) in carrying out weapons activities for national security programs under the stockpile stewardship program, may not, during FY 1997 and thereafter, exceed 50 percent of its FY 1996 amount; (5) shall terminate construction of the National Ignition Facility; and (6) shall provide adequate funds for environmental restoration and waste management activities at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities in order to meet all compliance requirements. Directs each Secretary, after taking into account any reductions in force structure under this Act, to achieve any required additional savings by consolidating bases and laboratories of the Department of Defense, DOE, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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.

Who introduced it

Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR

Committees

  • Armed Services Committee
11 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the House Committee on National Security.

  2. Introduced in House

  3. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

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

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: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

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.R.3202 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.R.3202 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.R.3202 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.R.3202 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