§ 1928. North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(c) [title VI], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–121, 3009–173, provided that: “SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.“This title may be cited as the ‘NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996’. “SEC. 602. FINDINGS.“The Congress makes the following findings:“(1) Since 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has played an essential role in guaranteeing the security, freedom, and prosperity of the United States and its partners in the Alliance. “(2) The NATO Alliance is, and has been since its inception, purely defensive in character, and it poses no threat to any nation. The enlargement of the NATO Alliance to include as full and equal members emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe will serve to reinforce stability and security in Europe by fostering their integration into the structures which have created and sustained peace in Europe since 1945. Their admission into NATO will not threaten any nation. America’s security, freedom, and prosperity remain linked to the security of the countries of Europe. “(3) The sustained commitment of the member countries of NATO to a mutual defense has made possible the democratic transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. Members of the Alliance can and should play a critical role in addressing the security challenges of the post-Cold War era and in creating the stable environment needed for those emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to successfully complete political and economic transformation. “(4) The United States continues to regard the political independence and territorial integrity of all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as vital to European peace and security. “(5) The active involvement by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe has made the Partnership for Peace program an important forum to foster cooperation between NATO and those countries seeking NATO membership. “(6) NATO has enlarged its membership on 3 different occasions since 1949. “(7) Congress supports the admission of qualified new members to NATO and the European Union at an early date and has sought to facilitate the admission of qualified new members into NATO. “(8) Lasting security and stability in Europe requires not only the military integration of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe into existing European structures, but also the eventual economic and political integration of these countries into existing European structures. “(9) As new members of NATO assume the responsibilities of Alliance membership, the costs of maintaining stability in Europe should be shared more widely. Facilitation of the enlargement process will require current members of NATO, and the United States in particular, to demonstrate the political will needed to build on successful ongoing programs such as the Warsaw Initiative and the Partnership for Peace by making available the resources necessary to supplement efforts prospective new members are themselves undertaking. “(10) New members will be full members of the Alliance, enjoying all rights and assuming all the obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington on April 4, 1949 (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘Washington Treaty’). “(11) In order to assist emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed interest in joining NATO to be prepared to assume the responsibilities of NATO membership, the United States should encourage and support efforts by such countries to develop force structures and force modernization priorities that will enable such countries to contribute to the full range of NATO missions, including, most importantly, territorial defense of the Alliance. “(12) Cooperative regional peacekeeping initiatives involving emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed interest in joining NATO, such as the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion, the Polish-Lithuanian Joint Peacekeeping Force, and the Polish-Ukrainian Peacekeeping Force, can make an important contribution to European peace and security and international peacekeeping efforts, can assist those countries preparing to assume the responsibilities of possible NATO membership, and accordingly should receive appropriate support from the United States. “(13) NATO remains the only multilateral security organization capable of conducting effective military operations and preserving security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic region. “(14) NATO is an important diplomatic forum and has played a positive role in defusing tensions between members of the Alliance and, as a result, no military action has occurred between two Alliance member states since the inception of NATO in 1949. “(15) The admission to NATO of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe which are found to be in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty would contribute to international peace and enhance the security of the region. Countries which have become democracies and established market economies, which practice good neighborly relations, and which have established effective democratic civilian control over their defense establishments and attained a degree of interoperability with NATO, should be evaluated for their potential to further the principles of the Washington Treaty. “(16) Democratic civilian control of defense forces is an essential element in the process of preparation for those states interested in possible NATO membership. “(17) Protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights is an integral aspect of genuine security, and in evaluating requests for membership in NATO, the human rights records of the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be evaluated according to their commitments to fulfill in good faith the human rights obligations of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act. “(18) A number of Central and Eastern European countries have expressed interest in NATO membership, and have taken concrete steps to demonstrate this commitment, including their participation in Partnership for Peace activities. “(19) The Caucasus region remains important geographically and politically to the future security of Central Europe. As NATO proceeds with the process of enlargement, the United States and NATO should continue to examine means to strengthen the sovereignty and enhance the security of United Nations recognized countries in that region. “(20) In recognition that not all countries which have requested membership in NATO will necessarily qualify at the same pace, the accession date for each new member will vary. “(21) The provision of additional NATO transition assistance should include those emerging democracies most ready for closer ties with NATO and should be designed to assist other countries meeting specified criteria of eligibility to move forward toward eventual NATO membership. “(22) The Congress of the United States finds in particular that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have made significant progress toward achieving the criteria set forth in section 203(d)(3) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below] and should be eligible for the additional assistance described in this Act. “(23) The evaluation of future membership in NATO for emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be based on the progress of those nations in meeting criteria for NATO membership, which require enhancement of NATO’s security and the approval of all NATO members. “(24) The process of NATO enlargement entails the consensus agreement of the governments of all 16 NATO members and ratification in accordance with their constitutional procedures. “(25) Some NATO members, such as Spain and Norway, do not allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory although they are accorded the full collective security guarantees provided by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. There is no a priori requirement for the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members, particularly in the current security climate. However, NATO retains the right to alter its security posture at any time as circumstances warrant. “SEC. 603. UNITED STATES POLICY.“It is the policy of the United States—“(1) to join with the NATO allies of the United States to adapt the role of the NATO Alliance in the post-Cold War world; “(2) to actively assist the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe in their transition so that such countries may eventually qualify for NATO membership; “(3) to support the enlargement of NATO in recognition that enlargement will benefit the interests of the United States and the Alliance and to consider these benefits in any analysis of the costs of NATO enlargement; “(4) to ensure that all countries in Central and Eastern Europe are fully aware of and capable of assuming the costs and responsibilities of NATO membership, including the obligation set forth in Article 10 of the Washington Treaty that new members be able to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area; and “(5) to work to define a constructive and cooperative political and security relationship between an enlarged NATO and the Russian Federation. “SEC. 604. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FURTHER ENLARGEMENT OF NATO.“It is the sense of the Congress that in order to promote economic stability and security in Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine—“(1) the United States should continue and expand its support for the full and active participation of these countries in activities appropriate for qualifying for NATO membership; “(2) the United States Government should use all diplomatic means available to press the European Union to admit as soon as possible any country which qualifies for membership; “(3) the United States Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should continue and expand their support for military exercises and peacekeeping initiatives between and among these nations, nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Russia; and “(4) the process of enlarging NATO to include emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should not be limited to consideration of admitting Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia as full members of the NATO Alliance. “SEC. 605. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING ESTONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA.“In view of the forcible incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania into the Soviet Union in 1940 under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the refusal of the United States and other countries to recognize that incorporation for over 50 years, it is the sense of the Congress that—“(1) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have valid historical security concerns that must be taken into account by the United States; and “(2) Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania should not be disadvantaged in seeking to join NATO by virtue of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union. “SEC. 606. DESIGNATION OF COUNTRIES ELIGIBLE FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.“(a) In General.—The following countries are designated as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below] and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to section 203(d)(1) of such Act: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. “(b) Designation of Slovenia.—Effective 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1996], Slovenia is designated as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to section 203(d) of such Act, unless the President certifies to Congress prior to such effective date that Slovenia fails to meet the criteria under section 203(d)(3) of such Act. “(c) Designation of Other Countries.—The President shall designate other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under section 203(a) of such Act if such countries—“(1) have expressed a clear desire to join NATO; “(2) have begun an individualized dialogue with NATO in preparation for accession; “(3) are strategically significant to an effective NATO defense; and “(4) meet the other criteria outlined in section 203(d)(3) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (title II of Public Law 103–447; 22 U.S.C. 1928 note). “(d) Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section precludes the designation by the President of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, Ukraine, or any other emerging democracy in Central and Eastern Europe pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under section 203(a) of such Act. “SEC. 607. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT ASSISTANCE.“(a) In General.—There are authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the program established under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below]. “(b) Availability.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a)—“(1) not less than $20,000,000 shall be available for the cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the [Federal] Credit Reform Act of 1990 [2 U.S.C. 661a(5)], of direct loans pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (relating to the ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’); “(2) not less than $30,000,000 shall be available for assistance on a grant basis pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(4) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (relating to the ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’); and “(3) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available for assistance pursuant to the authority of section 203(c)(3) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 (relating to international military education and training). “(c) Rule of Construction.—Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to be appropriated in addition to such amounts as otherwise may be available for such purposes. “SEC. 608. REGIONAL AIRSPACE INITIATIVE AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.“(a) In General.—To the extent provided in advance in appropriations acts for such purposes, funds described in subsection (b) are authorized to be made available to support the implementation of the Regional Airspace Initiative and the Partnership for Peace Information Management System, including—“(1) the procurement of items in support of these programs; and “(2) the transfer of such items to countries participating in these programs. “(b) Funds Described.—Funds described in this subsection are funds that are available—“(1) during any fiscal year under the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out as a note below] with respect to countries eligible for assistance under that Act; or “(2) during fiscal year 1997 under any Act to carry out the Warsaw Initiative. “SEC. 609. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.“(a) Priority Delivery.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the delivery of excess defense articles under the authority of section 203(c)(1) and (2) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below] and section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2321j] shall be given priority to the maximum extent feasible over the delivery of such excess defense articles to all other countries except those countries referred to in section 541 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103–306; 108 Stat. 1640). “(b) Cooperative Regional Peacekeeping Initiatives.—The Congress encourages the President to provide excess defense articles and other appropriate assistance to cooperative regional peacekeeping initiatives involving emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that have expressed an interest in joining NATO in order to enhance their ability to contribute to European peace and security and international peacekeeping efforts. “SEC. 610. MODERNIZATION OF DEFENSE CAPABILITY.“The Congress endorses efforts by the United States to modernize the defense capability of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and any other countries designated by the President pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below], by exploring with such countries options for the sale or lease to such countries of weapons systems compatible with those used by NATO members, including air defense systems, advanced fighter aircraft, and telecommunications infrastructure. “SEC. 611. TERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY.“(a) Termination of Eligibility.—The eligibility of a country designated pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of section 606 or pursuant to section 203(d) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below] may be terminated upon a determination by the President that such country does not meet the criteria set forth in section 203(d)(3) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994. “(b) Notification.—At least 15 days before terminating the eligibility of any country pursuant to subsection (a), the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2394–1] in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under that section. “SEC. 612. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE NATO PARTICIPATION ACT. “[Amended section 203 of Pub. L. 103–447, set out in a note below.]”

Defense Burdensharing

Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title XII, § 1221, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1935, as amended by Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XII, § 1233, Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2156; [Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [div. A], title X, § 1087(e)(2)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–293, provided that: “(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.—The President shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative military relations with the United States (including security agreements, basing arrangements, or mutual participation in multinational military organizations or operations) take one or more of the following actions:“(1) For any nation in which United States military personnel are assigned to permanent duty ashore, increase its financial contributions to the payment of the nonpersonnel costs incurred by the United States Government for stationing United States military personnel in that nation, with a goal of achieving by September 30, 2000, 75 percent of such costs. An increase in financial contributions by any nation under this paragraph may include the elimination of taxes, fees, or other charges levied on United States military personnel, equipment, or facilities stationed in that nation. “(2) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for national defense as a percentage of its gross domestic product by 10 percent or at least to a level commensurate to that of the United States by September 30, 1999. “(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign assistance (to promote democratization, governmental accountability and transparency, economic stabilization and development, defense economic conversion, respect for the rule of law and internationally recognized human rights, and humanitarian relief efforts) by 10 percent or to provide such foreign assistance at an annual rate that is not less than one percent of its gross domestic product, by September 30, 1999. “(4) Increase the military assets (including personnel, equipment, logistics, support and other resources) that it contributes or has pledged to contribute to multinational military activities worldwide by 10 percent by September 30, 1999. “(b) Authorities To Encourage Actions by United States Allies.—In seeking the actions described in subsection (a) with respect to any nation, or in response to a failure by any nation to undertake one or more of such actions, the President may take any of the following measures to the extent otherwise authorized by law:“(1) Reduce the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in that nation. “(2) Impose on that nation fees or other charges similar to those that such nation imposes on United States forces stationed in that nation. “(3) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment, or other appropriate procedures as authorized by law) the amount the United States contributes to the NATO Civil Budget, Military Budget, or Security Investment Program. “(4) Suspend, modify, or terminate any bilateral security agreement the United States has with that nation, consistent with the terms of such agreement. “(5) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment or other appropriate procedures as authorized by law) any United States bilateral assistance appropriated for that nation. “(6) Take any other action the President determines to be appropriate as authorized by law. “(c) Report on Progress in Increasing Allied Burdensharing.—Not later than March 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on—“(1) steps taken by other nations to complete the actions described in subsection (a); “(2) all measures taken by the President, including those authorized in subsection (b), to achieve the actions described in subsection (a); “(3) the difference between the amount allocated by other nations for each of the actions described in subsection (a) during the period beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending on September 30, 1997, and during the period beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending on September 30, 1998, or, in the case of any nation for which the data for such periods is inadequate, the difference between the amounts for the latest periods for which adequate data is available; and “(4) the budgetary savings to the United States that are expected to accrue as a result of the steps described under paragraph (1). “(d) Report on National Security Bases for Forward Deployment and Burdensharing Relationships.—(1) In order to ensure the best allocation of budgetary resources, the President shall undertake a review of the status of elements of the United States Armed Forces that are permanently stationed outside the United States. The review shall include an assessment of the following:“(A) The alliance requirements that are to be found in agreements between the United States and other countries. “(B) The national security interests that support permanently stationing elements of the United States Armed Forces outside the United States. “(C) The stationing costs associated with the forward deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces. “(D) The alternatives available to forward deployment (such as material prepositioning, enhanced airlift and sealift, or joint training operations) to meet such alliance requirements or national security interests, with such alternatives identified and described in detail. “(E) The costs and force structure configurations associated with such alternatives to forward deployment. “(F) The financial contributions that allies of the United States make to common defense efforts (to promote democratization, economic stabilization, transparency arrangements, defense economic conversion, respect for the rule of law, and internationally recognized human rights). “(G) The contributions that allies of the United States make to meeting the stationing costs associated with the forward deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces. “(H) The annual expenditures of the United States and its allies on national defense, and the relative percentages of each nation’s gross domestic product constituted by those expenditures. “(2) The President shall submit to Congress a report on the review under paragraph (1). The report shall be submitted not later than March 1, 1999, in classified and unclassified form.”

[Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title XII, § 1233(a), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2156, provided that the amendments made by that section to section 1221(a) of Pub. L. 105–85, set out above, are effective Oct. 1, 1998.]

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior authorization act:

Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1084, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2673, as amended by Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, § 1045(e), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1613.

Nato Participation

Pub. L. 103–447, title II, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4695, as amended by Pub. L. 104–107, title V, § 585, Feb. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 752; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(c) [title VI, § 612], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–121, 3009–178; Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. B, title XXVII, § 2703(e), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–842, provided that: “SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.“This title may be cited as the ‘NATO Participation Act of 1994’. “SEC. 202. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.“It is the sense of the Congress that—“(1) the leaders of the NATO member nations are to be commended for reaffirming that NATO membership remains open to Partnership for Peace countries emerging from communist domination and for welcoming eventual expansion of NATO to include such countries; “(2) full and active participants in the Partnership for Peace in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area should be invited to become full NATO members in accordance with Article 10 of such Treaty at an early date, if such participants—“(A) maintain their progress toward establishing democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed forces, and the rule of law; and “(B) remain committed to protecting the rights of all their citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their neighbors; “(3) the United States, other NATO member nations, and NATO itself should furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership at an early date of full and active participants in the Partnership for Peace; and “(4) in particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia have made significant progress toward establishing democratic institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed forces, and the rule of law since the fall of their previous communist governments. “SEC. 203. AUTHORITY FOR PROGRAM TO FACILITATE TRANSITION TO NATO MEMBERSHIP.“(a) In General.—The President may establish a program to assist the transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other Partnership for Peace emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe designated pursuant to subsection (d). “(b) Conduct of Program.—The program established under subsection (a) shall facilitate the transition to full NATO membership of the countries designated under subsection (d) by supporting and encouraging, inter alia—“(1) joint planning, training, and military exercises with NATO forces; “(2) greater interoperability of military equipment, air defense systems, and command, control, and communications systems; and “(3) conformity of military doctrine. “(c) Type of Assistance.—In carrying out the program established under subsection (a), the President may provide to the countries designated under subsection (d) the following types of security assistance:“(1) The transfer of excess defense articles under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2321j]. “(2) Assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.] (relating to international military education and training). “(3) Assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2763] (relating to the ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’). “(4) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.] (relating to the Economic Support Fund). “(5) Funds made available for the ‘Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund’. “(6) Assistance under chapter 6 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2348 et seq.] (relating to peacekeeping operations and other programs). “(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)], the President may direct the crating, packing, handling, and transportation of excess defense articles provided pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection without charge to the recipient of such articles. “(d) Designation of Eligible Countries.—“(1) Initial presidential review and designation.—Within 60 days of the enactment of the NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995 [NATO Participation Act Amendments of 1995 was contained in S. 602 and title VII of H.R. 1868 which were predecessor versions of provisions enacted into law by section 585 of Pub. L. 104–107, which was approved Feb. 12, 1996], the President should evaluate the degree to which any emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe which has expressed its interest in joining NATO meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (3), and may designate one or more of these countries as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under subsection (a). The President shall, at the time of designation of any country pursuant to this paragraph, determine and report to the Committees on International Relations and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations and Appropriations of the Senate with respect to each country so designated that such country meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (3). “(2) Other european countries emerging from communist domination.—In addition to the countries designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the President may at any time designate other European emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under subsection (a). The President shall, at the time of designation of any country pursuant to this paragraph, determine and report to the Committees on International Relations and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Foreign Relations and Appropriations of the Senate with respect to each country so designated that such country meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (3). “(3) Criteria.—The criteria referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) are, with respect to each country, that the country—“(A) has made significant progress toward establishing—“(i) shared values and interests; “(ii) democratic governments; “(iii) free market economies; “(iv) civilian control of the military, of the police, and of intelligence services, so that these organizations do not pose a threat to democratic institutions, neighboring countries, or the security of NATO or the United States; “(v) adherence to the rule of law and to the values, principles, and political commitments set forth in the Helsinki Final Act and other declarations by the members of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe; “(vi) commitment to further the principles of NATO and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area; “(vii) commitment to protecting the rights of all their citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their neighbors; “(viii) commitment and ability to accept the obligations, responsibilities, and costs of NATO membership; and “(ix) commitment and ability to implement infrastructure development activities that will facilitate participation in and support for NATO military activities; “(B) is likely, within five years of such determination, to be in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area; and “(C) is not ineligible to receive assistance under section 552 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 [110 Stat. 741], with respect to transfers of equipment to a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2780(d)]. “(e) Notification.—At least 15 days before designating any country pursuant to subsection (d), the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees in accordance with the procedures applicable under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394–1), and shall include with such notification a memorandum of justification with respect to the proposed designation. “(f) Determination.—It is hereby determined that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia meet the criteria required in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (d). “(g) Effect on Other Authorities.—Nothing in this Act [title] shall affect the eligibility of countries to participate under other provisions of law in programs described in this Act [title]. “SEC. 204. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES.“(a) Arms Export Control Act.—The President is authorized to exercise the authority of sections 63 and 65 of the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2796b, 2796d] with respect to any country designated under section 203(d) of this title on the same basis authorized with respect to NATO countries. “(b) Other NATO Authorities.—The President should designate any country designated under section 203(d) of this title as eligible under sections 2350c and 2350f of title 10, United States Code. “(c) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that, in the interest of maintaining stability and promoting democracy in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and any other Partnership for Peace country designated under section 203(d) of this title, those countries should be included in all activities under section 2457 of title 10, United States Code, related to the increased standardization and enhanced interoperability of equipment and weapons systems, through coordinated training and procurement activities, as well as other means, undertaken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization members and other allied countries. “SEC. 205. ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT.“The President shall include in the annual report required by [former] section 514(a) of Public Law 103–236 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) the following:“(1) A description of all assistance provided under the program established under section 203(a), or otherwise provided by the United States Government to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and any other country designated by the President pursuant to section 203(d). “(2) A description, on the basis of information received from the recipients and from NATO, of all assistance provided by other NATO member nations or NATO itself to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and any other country designated by the President pursuant to section 203(d).”

Cost-Sharing Policy

Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, § 1313(a)–(d), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2894, 2895, as amended by Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title XII, § 1238(b), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4644, provided that: “(a) Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies should assist the United States in paying the incremental costs incurred by the United States for maintaining members of the Armed Forces in assignments to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO solely for support of NATO roles and missions. “(b) Implementation.—The President shall take all necessary actions to ensure the effective implementation of the policy set forth in subsection (a). “(c) Incremental Costs Defined.—For purposes of subsection (a), the definition provided for the term ‘incremental costs’ in section 1046 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 [Pub. L. 102–190, set out below], as added by subsection (e), shall apply with respect to maintaining members of the Armed Forces in assignments to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO in the same manner as such term applies with respect to permanent stationing ashore of United States forces in foreign nations for purposes of subsection (e)(4) of such section 1046. “[(d) Redesignated (c).]”

Implementation of Partnership for Peace

Pub. L. 103–236, title V, § 514, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 467, as amended by Pub. L. 112–74, div. I, title VII, § 7034(n), Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1217, provided that: “[(a) Repealed. Pub. L. 112–74, div. I, title VII, § 7034(n), Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1217.] “(b) Authority of the President.—The President is authorized to confer, pursuant to agreement with any country eligible to participate in the Partnership for Peace, rights in respect of the military and related civilian personnel (including dependents of any such personnel) and activities of that country in the United States comparable to the rights conferred by that country in respect of the military and related civilian personnel (including dependents of any such personnel) and activities of the United States in that country.”

[Functions of President under section 514 of Pub. L. 103–236, set out above, delegated to Secretary of State by section 1 of Ex. Ord. No. 13313, July 31, 2003, 68 F.R. 46073, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.]

Defense Cost-Sharing

Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, § 1046, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1466, as amended by Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XIV, § 1412(b), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1829; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, § 1313(e), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2895; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1051(e), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1563, provided that: “(a) Defense Cost-Sharing Agreements.—(1) The President shall consult with the foreign nations described in paragraph (2) to seek to achieve, within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 5, 1991], an agreement on equitable defense cost-sharing with each such nation. “(2) The foreign nations referred to in paragraph (1) are—“(A) each member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (other than the United States); and “(B) every other foreign nation with which the United States has a bilateral or multilateral defense agreement that provides for the assignment of combat units of the Armed Forces of the United States to permanent duty in the nation or the placement of combat equipment of the United States in the nation. “(3) Each defense cost-sharing agreement entered into under paragraph (1) should provide that the foreign nation agrees to share equitably with the United States, through cash compensation or in-kind contributions, or a combination thereof, the costs to the United States that arise solely from the implementation of the provisions of the bilateral or multilateral defense agreement with that nation. “(b) Exception.—The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to those foreign nations that receive assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) relating to the foreign military financing program or under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) relating to the Economic Support Fund. “(c) Consultations.—In conducting the consultations required under subsection (a), the President should make maximum feasible use of the Department of Defense and the post of Ambassador-at-Large created by section 8125(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1989 [Pub. L. 100–463] (10 U.S.C. 113 note). “(d) Allies Mutual Defense Payments Account.—The Secretary of Defense shall maintain an accounting for defense cost-sharing under each agreement entered into with a foreign nation pursuant to subsection (a). The accounting shall show for each foreign nation the amount and nature of the—“(1) cost-sharing contributions agreed to by the nation; “(2) cost-sharing contributions delivered by the nation; “(3) additional contributions by the nation to any commonly funded multilateral programs providing for United States participation in the common defense; “(4) contributions by the United States to any such commonly funded multilateral programs; “(5) contributions of all other nations to any such commonly funded multilateral programs; and “(6) costs to the United States that arise solely from the implementation of the provisions of the bilateral or multilateral defense agreement with the nation.

Active-Duty Forces in Europe of Member Nations of NATO

Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title IX, § 912, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1523, directed Secretary of Defense to ensure that, for the next three years, the current ratio (expressed as a percentage) of U.S. active duty forces in Europe to allied active duty forces in Europe does not increase by more than a specified amount.

Sense of Congress on Need for Modernization of Theater Nuclear Capabilities of NATO

Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title X, § 1004, Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2039, provided that: “(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:“(1) The security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance will continue for the foreseeable future to rely on a modern and credible nuclear deterrent. “(2) NATO should make every effort to achieve the goal of raising the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict in Europe. “(3) While recognizing that there is a critical need for improvements in conventional forces, Congress also recognizes that the United States will have to devote defense resources in the future to the continuing modernization of the theater nuclear capabilities of NATO. “(4) The modernization of the theater nuclear capabilities of NATO is a continuing process and stems from the 1983 Montebello decision by NATO to reduce the stockpile of nuclear weapons in Europe while taking steps to ensure that the remaining nuclear weapons of the alliance are responsive, survivable, and effective. “(5) Programs to modernize theater nuclear forces, which had a high priority for NATO before the ratification of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are at least as important following the ratification of that treaty in May 1988. “(6) The NATO Nuclear Planning Group recently reaffirmed its endorsement of development by the United States of a new missile for delivery of theater nuclear weapons as a follow-on to the current Lance missile, with a view toward an eventual decision on deployment of such a follow-on missile. “(b) Sense of Congress.—In light of the findings in subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that—“(1) modernization of the theater nuclear capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is essential to the deterrence strategy of the NATO alliance, particularly in light of the requirements of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty for the destruction of intermediate-range nuclear weapons; “(2) continued modernization by the United States of theater nuclear capabilities should be undertaken in close consultation with other NATO member nations; and “(3) the United States should proceed with ongoing activities to meet the identified requirement of the NATO alliance for development of a new missile for delivery of theater nuclear weapons as a follow-on to the Lance missile.”

Report on Official Development Assistance Program of Japan

Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title X, § 1009(b), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2041, which required annual reports on the Official Development Assistance program of the Government of Japan, was repealed by Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1051(c), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1562.

Japan-United States Security Relationship and Efforts by Japan To Fulfill Self-Defense Responsibilities

Pub. L. 99–93, title VIII, § 812, Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 453, as amended by Pub. L. 103–236, title I, § 139(14), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 398, provided that: “(a) Findings.—The Congress hereby finds—“(1) the Japan-United States security relationship is the foundation of the peace and security of Japan and the Far East, as well as a major contributor to the protection of the United States and of the democratic freedoms and economic prosperity enjoyed by both the United States and Japan; “(2) the threats to our two democracies have increased significantly since 1976, principally through the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the expansion of Soviet armed forces in the Far East, the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, and the instability in the Persian Gulf region as signified by the continuing Iran-Iraq conflict; “(3) in recognition of these and other threats, the United States has greatly increased its annual defense spending through sustained real growth averaging 8.8 percent yearly between fiscal 1981 and 1985, and cumulative real growth of 50 percent in that period; “(4) the United States Government appreciates the May 1981 commitment by the Prime Minister of Japan that, pursuant to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security of 1960 between Japan and the United States, Japan, on its own initiative, would seek to make even greater efforts for improving its defense capabilities, and pursuant to Japan’s own Constitution, it was national policy for his country to acquire and maintain the self-defense forces adequate for the defense of its land area and surrounding airspace and sea­lanes, out to a distance of 1,000 miles; “(5) the United States Government applauds the policy of Japan to obtain the capabilities to defend its sea and air lanes out to 1,000 miles, expects that these capabilities should be acquired by the end of the decade, and recognizes that achieving those capabilities would significantly improve the national security of both Japan and the United States; “(6) the United States Government appreciates the contribution already made by Japan through the Host Nation Support Program and its recent efforts to increase its defense spending; and “(7) Japan, however, in recent years consistently has not provided sufficient funding and resources to meet its self-defense needs and to meet common United States-Japan defense objectives and alliance responsibilities. “(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of the Congress that Japan, to fulfill its self-defense responsibilities pursuant to the 1960 Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty with the United States, and in accordance with the national policy declaration made by its Prime Minister in May 1981, to develop a 1,000-mile airspace and sea­lanes defense capability, should implement a 1986–1990 Mid-Term Defense Plan containing sufficient funding, program acquisition, and force development resources to obtain the agreed-upon 1,000 mile self-defense capabilities by the end of the decade, including the allocation of sufficient budgetary resources annually to reduce substantially the ammunition, logistics, and sustainability shortfalls of its self-defense forces.”

Sense of Congress Relating to Increase in Defense Spending by United States Allies

Pub. L. 98–525, title X, § 1001, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2574, expressed the sense of Congress that the President should call on the nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to meet or exceed their pledges for an annual increase in defense spending during fiscal years 1984 and 1985 of at least 3 percent real growth and should call on Japan to further increase its defense spending during fiscal years 1984 and 1985.

Similar provisions were contained in Pub. L. 98–473, title I, § 101(e) [§ 127], (h) [title VIII, § 8105], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1877, 1883, 1904, 1943.

Improvements to NATO Conventional Capability

Pub. L. 98–525, title X, § 1002, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2574, as amended by Pub. L. 99–145, title XI, § 1101, Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 707; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title IX, § 911(a), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1523; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title IV, § 406, title XIII, § 1312(c)(1), (2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1546, 1670; Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, § 704(a)(2), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 118; Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, § 1042, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1462; Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title XIII, § 1303(a), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XIV, § 1412(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1828; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, § 1303(a)–(c), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2889, 2890; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XIII, § 1334(a), title XV, § 1502(c)(7), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 484, 508; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §§ 1032(b)(4), 1067(12), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 751, 775, provided that: “(a) The Congress finds—“(1) that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should improve its conventional defense capability so as to lengthen the period of time that Western Europe can be defended by conventional forces without the necessity of resorting to the early use of nuclear weapons in the event of a non-nuclear attack on any NATO member country; “(2) that fulfillment by NATO member nations of their goals and commitments to increase defense spending, improve conventional sustainability, and provide support facilities in Western Europe for rapid reinforcements from the United States is crucial to accomplishing that objective; and “(3) that an increase over current United States military personnel levels in European member nations of NATO can be justified only if these goals and commitments are substantially met by NATO member nations (other than the United States). “(b) The Congress urges the President and the Secretary of Defense to continue to encourage member nations of NATO (other than the United States) to work expeditiously to fulfill the following commitments they have undertaken:“(1) To achieve and maintain an annual increase in their defense spending of at least 3 percent, after inflation. “(2) To acquire a 30-day supply of air and ground munitions among those NATO members which have committed forces to the Northern, Center, and Southern Regions. “(3) To construct the number of minimum essential and emergency operating facilities and semihardened aircraft shelters in Western Europe required by NATO Ministerial Guidance to support, under NATO/SHAPE standards, as a minimum, the annual commitment of United States reinforcing tactical aircraft. “(c)(1) The end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may not exceed a permanent ceiling of approximately 100,000 in any fiscal year. “(2) If the Secretary of Defense certifies to the Congress in writing during any fiscal year after fiscal year 1985 that during the previous fiscal year the member nations of NATO (other than the United States) have undertaken significant measures to improve their conventional defense capacity consistent with the goals set forth in subsection (b) which contributes to lengthening the time period between an armed attack on any NATO country and the time the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, would have to request the release and use of nuclear weapons, the Congress would give strong consideration to authorizing an increase in the permanent ceiling prescribed in paragraph (1) for fiscal years after such fiscal year. “(3) For purposes of this subsection, the following members of the Armed Forces are excluded in calculating the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO:“(A) Members assigned to permanent duty ashore in Iceland, Greenland, and the Azores. “(B) Members performing duties in Europe for more than 179 days under a military-to-military contact program under [former] section 168 of title 10, United States Code. “[(d) Repealed. Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1032(b)(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 751.] “(e)(1) The Congress finds that a viable ‘two-way street’ of defense procurement improves NATO interoperability and therefore is important to overall improvements in conventional defense. “(2) In addition to any funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization contained in this Act for the activities of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense, the Director may use an additional amount, not to exceed $50,000,000, to acquire certain types of weapons, subsystems, and munitions of European NATO manufacture for side-by-side testing with comparable United States manufactured items. Such additional amount shall be derived from any funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act. Items that may be acquired under this paragraph include submunitions and dispensers, anti-tank and anti-armor guided missiles, mines, runway-cratering devices, torpedoes, mortar systems, light armored vehicles, and high-velocity anti-tank guns. “(f)(1) This section shall not apply in the event of a declaration of war or an armed attack on any NATO member country. “(2) This section may be waived by the President if he declares an emergency and immediately informs the Congress of his action and the reasons therefor.”

[Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, § 1303(d), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2890, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending section 1002(c)(1) of Pub. L. 98–525, set out above] shall take effect on October 1, 1995.” ]

[Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title XIII, § 1303(b), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2546, which provided that the amendment of section 1002(c)(1) of Pub. L. 98–525, set out above, by section 1303(a) of Pub. L. 102–484, take effect Oct. 1, 1995, was repealed by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, § 1303(c), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2890.]

[Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title IX, § 911(b), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1523, which provided that the amendment of section 1002 of Pub. L. 98–525, set out above, by section 911(a) of Pub. L. 101–189, take effect on Sept. 30, 1991, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title IV, § 406(c), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1546.]

Report on Allied Contributions to the Common Defense

Pub. L. 98–525, title X, § 1003, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2576, as amended by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIII, § 1312(c)(3), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1670; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1084(e), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2675; Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, § 1045(e), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1613; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title XII, § 1238(a), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4644; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1051(b), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1562, provided that: “(a) In recognition of the increasing military threat faced by the Western World and in view of the growth, relative to the United States, in the economic strength of Japan, Canada, and a number of Western European countries which has occurred since the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, and the Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty between Japan and the United States on January 19, 1960, it is the sense of the Congress that—“(1) the burdens of mutual defense now assumed by some of the countries allied with the United States under those agreements are not commensurate with their economic resources; “(2) since May 1978, when each member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreed to increase real defense spending annually in the range of 3 percent, most NATO members, except for the United States, have failed to meet the 3 percent real growth commitment consistently; “(3) since May 1981, when the Government of Japan established its policy to defend the air and sea lines of communication out to 1,000 nautical miles from the coast of Japan, progress to develop the necessary self-defense capabilities to fulfill that pledge has been extremely disappointing; “(4) Japan is the ally of the United States with the greatest potential for improving its self-defense capabilities and should, therefore, rapidly increase its annual defense spending to the levels required to fulfill that pledge and to enable Japan to be capable of an effective conventional self-defense capability by 1990, including the capability to carry out its 1,000-mile defense policy, a development that would be consonant not only with Japan’s current prominent position in the family of nations but also with its unique sensibilities on the issues of war and peace, sensibilities that are recognized and respected by the people of the United States; and “(5) the continued unwillingness of such countries to increase their contributions to the common defense to more appropriate levels will endanger the vitality, effectiveness, and cohesion of the alliances between those countries and the United States. “(b) It is further the sense of the Congress that the President should seek from each signatory country (other than the United States) of the two treaties referred to in subsection (a) acceptance of international security responsibilities and an agreement to make contributions to the common defense which are commensurate with the economic resources of such country, including, when appropriate, an increase in host nation support.[Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, § 1045(e), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1613, provided in part that: “The amendment made by the preceding sentence [amending section 1084(e) of 104–201, set out in the credit of the note above] shall take effect as if included in Public Law 104–201.”] Similar provisions were contained in the following prior authorization act: Pub. L. 98–94, title XI, § 1102, Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 673.

NATO Defense Industrial Cooperation

Pub. L. 97–252, title XI, § 1122, Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 755, provided that: “(a) The Congress finds that—“(1) the United States remains firmly committed to cooperating closely with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (hereinafter in this section referred to as ‘NATO’) allies in protecting liberty and maintaining world peace; “(2) the financial burden of providing for the defense of Western Europe and for the protection of the interests of NATO member countries in areas outside the NATO treaty area has reached such proportions that new cooperative approaches among the United States and its NATO allies are required to achieve and maintain an adequate collective defense at acceptable costs; “(3) the need for a credible conventional deterrent in Western Europe has long been recognized in theory but has never been fully addressed in practice; “(4) a more equitable sharing by NATO member countries of both the burdens and the technological and economic benefits of the common defense would do much to reinvigorate the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance with a restored sense of unity and common purpose; “(5) a decision to coordinate more effectively the enormous technological, industrial, and economic resources of NATO member countries will not only increase the efficiency and effectiveness of NATO military expenditures but also provide inducement for the Soviet Union to enter into a meaningful arms reduction agreement so that both Warsaw Pact countries and NATO member countries can devote more of their energies and resources to peaceful and economically more beneficial pursuits. “(b) It is the sense of the Congress that the President should propose to the heads of government of the NATO member countries that the NATO allies of the United States join the United States in agreeing—“(1) to coordinate more effectively their defense efforts and resources to create, at acceptable costs, a credible, collective, conventional force for the defense of the North Atlantic Treaty area; “(2) to establish a cooperative defense-industrial effort within Western Europe and between Western Europe and North America that would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of NATO expenditures by providing a larger production base while eliminating unnecessary duplication of defense-industrial efforts; “(3) to share more equitably and efficiently the financial burdens, as well as the economic benefits (including jobs, technology, and trade) of NATO defense; and “(4) to intensify consultations promptly for the early achievement of the objectives described in clauses (1) through (3).”

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Countries and Japan; Contributions of Allies of United States to Common Defense Commensurate With Economic Resources; Report to Congress

Pub. L. 96–342, title X, § 1006, Sept. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1120, as amended by Pub. L. 97–86, title IX, § 919, Dec. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 1132; Pub. L. 97–252, title XI, § 1120, Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 754, provided that: “(a) In recognition of the growth, relative to the United States, in the economic strength of Japan, Canada, and Western European countries which has occurred since the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, and the Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty between Japan and the United States on January 19, 1960, it is the sense of Congress that—“(1) the burdens of mutual defense now assumed by the countries allied with the United States under those agreements are not commensurate with their economic resources; and “(2) the continued unwillingness of those countries to increase their contributions to the common defense to more appropriate levels would endanger the vitality, effectiveness, and cohesiveness of the alliances between those countries and the United States. “(b) It is further the sense of Congress that the President should seek from each signatory country (other than the United States) of the two treaties referred to in subsection (a) acceptance of international security responsibilities and agreement to make contributions to the common defense which are commensurate with the economic resources of such country, including, when appropriate, an increase in host nation support. “(c)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress not later than March 1, 1983, a report providing—“(A) a comparison of the fair and equitable shares of the mutual defense burdens of these alliances that should be borne by the United States, by other member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and by Japan, based upon economic strength and other relevant factors, and the actual defense efforts of each nation together with an explanation of disparities that currently exist and their impact on mutual defense efforts; “(B) a description of efforts by the United States and of other efforts to eliminate existing disparities; “(C) estimates of the real growth in defense spending in fiscal year 1983 projected for each NATO member nation compared to the annual real growth goal in the range of 3 percent set in May 1978; “(D) a description of the defense-related initiatives undertaken by each NATO member nation within the real growth in defense spending of such nation in fiscal year 1983; “(E) an explanation of those instances in which the commitments to real growth in defense spending and to the Long-Term Defense Program have not been realized and a description of efforts being made by the United States to ensure fulfillment of these important NATO commitments; and “(F) a description of what additional actions the President plans to take should the efforts by the United States referred to in clauses (B) and (E) fail and, in those instances where such additional actions do not include consideration of the repositioning of elements of the Armed Forces of the United States, a detailed explanation as to why such repositioning is not being so considered. “(2) If the report required by paragraph (1) as submitted to Congress is designated as having been classified, pursuant to Executive order, as requiring protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, then not later than thirty days after the submission of such report the Secretary shall submit to Congress a further report containing all the information in the initial report that does not require such protection.”

North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Balance-of-Payments Deficit; Equitable Cost Sharing; Report to Congress