PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 1, 2014
Strengthening Domestic Nuclear Security Act of 2014 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize appropriations for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for FY2015-FY2016.
Requires the Director for Domestic Nuclear Detection: (1) in developing and implementing the enhanced global nuclear detection architecture, to provide support for planning, organization, equipment, training, exercises, and operational assessments to federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal entities to assist in implementing radiological and nuclear detection capabilities in the event of a radiological or nuclear act of terror or other attack; and (2) to establish the Securing the Cities (STC) program to enhance the ability of the United States to detect and prevent a radiological or nuclear act of terror or other attack in high-risk urban areas. Requires the Comptroller General (GAO) to submit to specified congressional committees an assessment of the STC program within one year after enactment of this Act.
Requires, in the event of an acquisition of a new system for a component of DHS or any other DHS-related or -associated end-user, the head of such component to complete and sign a Mission Need Statement and Operational Requirements Document.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to change the joint annual interagency review of global nuclear detection architecture and the required annual report thereon to a biennial review and report.
People & committees
Rep. Meehan, Patrick [R-PA-7] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 374 - 11 (Roll no. 532). (text: CR H8192)
House roll call 532 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 374 - 11 (Roll no. 532).(text: CR H8192)
House roll call 532 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8198)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5629.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8192-8194)
Mr. Meehan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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: Apr 7, 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.5629 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.5629 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.5629 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.5629 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.