PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 21, 1997
Defend the United States of America Act of 1997 - Directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a research and development (R&D) program to develop an antiballistic missile system (system) that could achieve initial operational capability by the end of 2003. Provides that a decision whether to deploy the system shall be made by the Congress during 2000. Requires system development and deployment to be fully compliant with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and all other treaty obligations. Requires the system to: (1) protect the United States against limited ballistic missile threats; (2) be developed for deployment at a single site; and (3) include specified radars, ground-based interceptor missiles, space-based adjuncts, and phased array radars. Outlines factors to be considered by the Congress prior to the decision for system deployment. Directs the President to submit to the Congress a report containing the President's recommendation concerning system deployment. Provides for the expedited consideration of a congressional joint resolution concerning the deployment of a system at the former Safeguard ABM site in Grand Forks, North Dakota, which complies with requirements under this Act. Urges the President to pursue discussions with Russia regarding: (1) potential opportunities for cooperation on R&D of ballistic missile defense capabilities; (2) ABM Treaty amendments that would permit development and deployment of more effective limited defenses of the two countries against long-range ballistic missile attacks; and (3) establishment of conditions conducive to more effective national missile defense (NMD). Directs the President, if necessary, to consult with the Congress on whether to exercise the right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Directs the Secretary, through the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, to maintain a robust program of R&D of NMD technologies while developing for deployment the system described in this Act. Outlines specified actions to be taken by the President to: (1) defend against the development or spread of fissile materials and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs); and (2) reduce the threat to the United States from WMDs delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for reducing the threat to the United States of WMDs. Directs the President and the Congress, after the first NMD system deployed after this Act achieves initial operational capability, to review specified national security matters in order to determine priorities for future R&D and possible deployment of NMD technologies and for continued cooperation with Russia on arms control. Requires the Secretary to report to the Congress the Secretary's plan for: (1) carrying out the NMD program in accordance with this Act; and (2) reducing the threat to the United States of WMDs.
People & committees
Sen. Lugar, Richard G. [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S439-440)
Introduced in Senate
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 21, 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 S.64 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 S.64 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 S.64 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 S.64 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.