PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and International Relations, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2000
National Missile Defense Deployment Criteria Act of 2000 - Amends the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 to allow deployment of a national missile defense system (system) only if: (1) the system is technologically feasible; (2) system cost in relation to other Department of Defense (DOD) priorities will not lead to an overall reduction in national security by reducing resources available for other defense priorities; (3) the system will not diminish overall U.S. national security; (4) the system will not threaten to disrupt relations with U.S. nuclear allies, U.S. European allies, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and other nations; and (5) the threat of a long-range ballistic missile attack from a nation of concern is clearly demonstrated.Prohibits the President from directing DOD to deploy a system unless and until: (1) the President certifies to Congress that the above deployment conditions have been met; and (2) a joint resolution is enacted concurring in the President's certification.(Sec. 4) Prohibits DOD procurement funds from being obligated for a system unless: (1) the President certifies to Congress that adequate system tests have been undertaken to meet identified threats against countermeasures; and (2) a joint resolution is enacted concurring in the President's certification. Outlines procedures for the consideration of each joint resolution.(Sec. 5) Requires the Secretary of Defense to direct the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to: (1) include specified system countermeasures in system ground and flight testing conducted before the system becomes operational; and (2) determine the extent to which the exoatmospheric kill vehicle and the system can reliably discriminate between warheads and such countermeasures. Directs the Secretary to determine the funding required for fiscal years after 2001 for such countermeasures testing, and to submit such determination to the congressional defense committees. Requires an annual report from the Secretary to Congress on DOD's efforts to establish a program for operationally realistic system testing against countermeasures. Terminate the report requirement when a system becomes operational.Directs the Secretary to have the National Academy of Science establish an independent review panel of scientific and technical experts to assess system countermeasures, the system's operational effectiveness against such countermeasures, and the adequacy of the system's flight testing program. Requires: (1) an evaluation of system testing following such assessment; and (2) an annual report from the panel to the Secretary and Congress on such assessment and evaluation.
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.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and International Relations, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and International Relations, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and International Relations, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Rules, and International Relations, 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.
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: Aug 20, 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.5066 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.5066 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.5066 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.5066 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.