To amend the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to extend the deadline for the submission of the final report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, to provide for the appointment of additional members for the Commission, to ensure the availability of funds for the Commission, and for other purposes.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2007
Amends the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to: (1) extend until June 30, 2009, the deadline for the final report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack; (2) make the Commission chairman in charge of all Commission financial and administrative matters; and (3) provide guaranteed Commission funding for FY2008.
Authorizes the chairman of the congressional defense committees to jointly appoint up to three additional Commission members.
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
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.61 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.61 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.61 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.61 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.