Section 1928 · North Atlantic Treaty Organization

References in Text

The Foreign Service Act of 1980, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Pub. L. 96–465, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2071, as amended, which is classified principally to chapter 52 (§3901 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3901 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–465, §2206(a)(6)(A), substituted “Foreign Service Act of 1980” for “Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801),”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–465, §2206(a)(6)(B), substituted “chief of mission under the Foreign Service Act of 1980” for “chief of mission, class 1, within the meaning of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 801)”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–465, §2206(a)(6)(C), among other changes, substituted references to sections 2388 and 3949 of this title for references to sections 1789 and 922 of this title, respectively, and reference to members of the Foreign Service for reference to Foreign Service Reserve officers.

1959—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–108 substituted “five years” for “four years”.

1957—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–141 struck out provisions authorizing appropriations of not more than $3,200,000 for the fiscal year 1955.

Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–465 effective Feb. 15, 1981, except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of this title.

Annual Appropriations

Annual appropriations to meet the obligations of membership in various international organizations were contained in acts listed in a note set out under section 269a of this title.

Nato Participation

Pub. L. 103–447, title II, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4695, 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 countries emerging from communist domination 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 described in such subsection 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 described in such subsection 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], without regard to the restrictions in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) of such section (relating to the eligibility of countries for such articles under such section).

“(2) The transfer of nonlethal excess defense articles under section 519 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2321m], without regard to the restriction in subsection (a) of such section (relating to the justification of the foreign military financing program for the fiscal year in which a transfer is authorized).

“(3) 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).

“(4) Assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2763] (relating to the ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’).

“(d) Designation of Partnership for Peace Countries Emerging From Communist Domination.—The President may designate countries emerging from communism and participating in the Partnership for Peace, especially Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, to receive assistance under the program established under subsection (a) if the President determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives [now Committee on International Relations] and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that such countries—

“(1) are full and active participants in the Partnership for Peace;

“(2) have made significant progress toward establishing democratic institutions, a free market economy, civilian control of their armed forces, and the rule of law;

“(3) are likely in the near future 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

“(4) are not selling or transferring defense articles to a state that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [50 App. U.S.C. 2405(j)].

“(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].

“(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).

“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. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

“The President shall include in the report required by 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 other Partnership for Peace countries emerging from communist domination designated 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 other Partnership for Peace countries emerging from communist domination designated pursuant to section 203(d).”

Cost-Sharing Policy and Report

Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XIII, §1313(a)–(d), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2894, 2895, 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) Report.—The Secretary of Defense shall include in the annual report required by section 1002(d) of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985 [Pub. L. 98–525] (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) the following:

“(1) A description of the United States military forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO and an analysis of the cost of providing and maintaining such forces in such assignment primarily for support of NATO roles and missions.

“(2) A description of the United States military forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO primarily in support of other United States interests in other regions of the world and an analysis of the cost of providing and maintaining such forces in such assignment primarily for that purpose.

“(3) A specific enumeration and description of the offsets to United States costs of providing and maintaining United States military forces in Europe that the United States received from other NATO member nations in the fiscal year covered by the report, set out by country and by type of assistance, including both in-kind assistance and direct cash reimbursement, and the projected offsets for the five fiscal years following the fiscal year covered by the report.

“(d) 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.”

Implementation of Partnership for Peace

Pub. L. 103–236, title V, §514, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 467, provided that:

“(a) Report to Congress.—The President shall submit annually, beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 30, 1994], a detailed report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs [now Committee on International Relations] of the House of Representatives on the implementation of the ‘Partnership for Peace’ initiative, including an assessment of the progress made by former members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization in meeting the criteria for full membership articulated in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, wherein any other European state may, by unanimous agreement, be invited to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty if it is in a position to further the principles of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.

“(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(b) of Pub. L. 103–236, set out above, delegated to Secretary of State by Memorandum of President of the United States, July 26, 1994, 59 F.R. 40205, set out as a note under section 2370a of this title.]

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, 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.

“(e) Reporting Requirements.—The Secretary of Defense shall include in each Report on Allied Contributions to the Common Defense prepared under section 1003 of Public Law 98–525 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) information, in classified and unclassified form—

“(1) describing the efforts undertaken and the progress made by the President in carrying out subsections (a) and (c) during the period covered by the report;

“(2) specifying the accounting of defense cost-sharing contributions maintained under subsection (d) during that period;

“(3) assessing how equitably foreign nations not described in subsection (a) or excepted under subsection (b) are sharing the costs and burdens of implementing defense agreements with the United States and how those defense agreements serve the national security interests of the United States; and

“(4) specifying the incremental costs to the United States associated with the permanent stationing ashore of United States forces in foreign nations.

“(f) Incremental Costs Defined.—In this section, the term ‘incremental costs’, with respect to permanent stationing ashore of United States forces in foreign nations, means the difference between the costs associated with maintaining United States military forces in assignments to permanent duty ashore in the foreign nations and the costs associated with maintaining those same military forces at military bases in the United States.”

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, provided that: “The Secretary of Defense shall include with the annual report submitted pursuant to section 1003 of Public Law 98–525 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) a report on the Official Development Assistance program of the Government of Japan. Such report shall be prepared each year in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development and shall include a description of the amount and nature of spending under such program by recipient, including distinguishing between grant aid, loans, and credits.”

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, provided that: “It is the sense of Congress that the President—

“(1) should call on the pertinent member 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

“(2) should call on Japan to further increase its defense spending during fiscal years 1984 and 1985;

in furtherance of increased unity, equitable sharing of the common defense burden, and international stability.”

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, 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, members of the Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty ashore in Iceland, Greenland, and the Azores are excluded in calculating the end strength level of members of the Armed Forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of NATO.

“(d) Not later than April 1 of each even-numbered year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on the status, as of January 1 of the year in which the report is submitted, of the following matters:

“(1) The number of days of supply of the ground and aerial munitions in hand or on order of the member nations of NATO (other than the United States) which have committed forces to the Northern, Center, and Southern Regions.

“(2) The number of facilities and semihardened aircraft shelters completed or under construction as they relate to the United States commitment of reinforcing aircraft in the United States Defense Planning Questionnaire (DPQ) Response of the previous year.

“(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.”

[Section 1303(d) of Pub. L. 103–337 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.”]

[Section 1303(b) of Pub. L. 102–484, 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, 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.

“(c) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress each year, not later than April 1, a classified report containing—

“(1) 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 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;

“(2) a description of efforts by the United States and the efforts of other members of the alliances to eliminate any existing disparities;

“(3) projected estimates of the real growth in defense spending for the fiscal year in which the report is submitted for each NATO member nation;

“(4) a description of the defense-related initiatives undertaken by each NATO member nation within the real growth in defense spending of such nation in the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year in which the report is submitted;

“(5) an explanation of those instances in which the commitments to real growth in defense spending have not been realized and a description of efforts being made by the United States to ensure fulfillment of these important NATO commitments;

“(6) a description of the activities of each NATO member and Japan to enhance the security and stability of the Southwest Asia region and to assume additional missions for their own defense as the United States allocates additional resources to the mission of protecting Western interests in world areas not covered by the system of Western Alliances; and

“(7) a description of what additional actions the executive branch plans to take should the efforts by the United States referred to in clauses (2) and (5) fail, and, in those instances where such additional actions do not include consideration of the repositioning of American troops, a detailed explanation as to why such repositioning is not being so considered.

“(d) The Secretary of Defense shall also submit to the Congress not more than 30 days after the submission of the report required under subsection (a) an unclassified report containing the matters set forth in clauses (1) through (7) of such subsection.”

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

Pub. L. 93–155, title VIII, §812, Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 619, provided that:

“(a) The Congress finds that in order to achieve a more equitable sharing of the costs and expenses arising from commitments and obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, the President should seek, through appropriate bilateral and multilateral arrangements, payments sufficient in amount to offset fully any balance-of-payment deficit incurred by the United States during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, as the result of the deployment of forces in Europe in fulfillment of the treaty commitments and obligations of the United States. This balance-of-payment deficit shall be determined by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United States.

“(b) In the event that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization members (other than the United States) fail to offset the net balance-of-payment deficit described in subsection (a) prior to the expiration of eighteen months after the date of enactment of this section [Nov. 16, 1973], no funds may be expended after the expiration of twenty-four months following the date of enactment of this section [Nov. 16, 1973] for the purpose of maintaining or supporting United States forces in Europe in any number greater than a number equal to the average monthly number of United States forces assigned to duty in Europe during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, reduced by a percentage figure equal to the percentage figure by which such balance-of-payment deficit during such fiscal year was not offset.

“(c) The Congress further finds (1) that the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should, in order to achieve a more equitable sharing of the cost burden under the treaty, substantially increase their contributions to assist the United States in meeting those added budgeting expenses incurred as the result of maintaining and supporting United States forces in Europe, including, but not limited to, wages paid to local personnel by the United States, recurring expenses incurred in connection with the maintenance and operation of real property, maintenance facilities, supply depots, cold storage facilities, communications systems, and standby operations, and nonrecurring expenses such as the construction and rehabilitation of plants and facilities; (2) that the amount paid by the United States in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty infrastructure program should be reduced to a more equitable amount; and (3) that the President should seek, through appropriate bilateral and multilateral arrangements, a substantial reduction of the amounts paid by the United States in connection with those matters described in (1) and (2) above.

“(d) The President shall submit to the Congress within ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act [Nov. 16, 1973], and at the end of each ninety-day period thereafter, a written report informing the Congress of the progress that has been made in implementing the provisions of this section.”

United States Citizens Commission on NATO

Pub. L. 86–719, Sept. 7, 1960, 74 Stat. 818, as amended by Pub. L. 87–116, July 31, 1961, 75 Stat. 242, provided for a United States Citizens Commission on NATO to terminate on June 30, 1962, including the appointment of the Commission, vacancies, chairman and vice chairman, statement of purpose, conferences in NATO countries, representative status, authority of Commission, compensation and expenses, appropriations, and reports to Congress.

Ex. Ord. No. 11633. Security Clearance Program for United States Citizens Employed Directly by NATO, SEATO, and CENTO

Ex. Ord. No. 11633. Dec. 3, 1971, 36 F.R. 23197, provided:

The United States now participates in the activities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). The Security regulations of these three treaty organizations provide that each participating nation shall be responsible for the security screening and security clearance of its own citizens before they are authorized access to the Organization's TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL information. There is no existing program, however, under which United States civilians who are hired directly by these organizations can be screened and cleared for access to such Organization's TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL information while so employed. It is, of course, in the interest of the United States that United States citizens who participate in the activities of NATO, SEATO, and CENTO as direct hire employees of the civil or military agencies of those organizations be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States. At the same time, it is a fundamental principle of our Government to protect against unreasonable or unwarranted encroachment on the freedom and privacy of individuals.

I have determined that the provisions and procedures prescribed by this Order are necessary to assure the preservation of the integrity of the classified information of NATO, SEATO, and CENTO, and to protect the national interest. I have also determined that these provisions and procedures recognize the rights of individuals affected thereby and provide maximum possible safeguards to protect such rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, and as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. The Secretary of Defense shall establish a program and, by regulation, shall prescribe such specific requirements, restrictions, and other safeguards as he considers necessary for the administration of procedures whereby “Certificates of Security Clearance” for the United States citizens directly employed by civil or military agencies of NATO, SEATO, or CENTO may be provided to these international organizations when they so request. Such program shall also provide for the denial, revocation, or suspension of such “Certificates.”

Sec. 2. Subject to the provisions of applicable international agreements, the procedures established by the Secretary of Defense shall, insofar as is practical, be similar to those established by him pursuant to the authority vested in him by Executive Order No. 10865 of February 20, 1960, as amended [set out as a note under section 401 of Title 50, War and National Defense].

Sec. 3. The substance of the criteria, safeguards, and procedures provided in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of Executive Order No. 10865, as amended [set out as a note under section 401 of Title 50, War and National Defense], shall be incorporated in the regulations of the Secretary of Defense governing the program established hereunder.

Sec. 4. Any authority vested in the Secretary of Defense by this Order may be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Richard Nixon.

Determination Regarding End Strength Level of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe for Fiscal Year 1991

Determination of President of the United States, No. 91–37, May 29, 1991, 56 F.R. 25611, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Consistent with section 406(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510; 104 Stat. 1546) [amending section 1002 of Pub. L. 98–525, set out as a note above], I hereby authorize an end strength level of members of the Armed Forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in excess of 261,855 for fiscal year 1991, and determine that the national security interests of the United States require such authorization.

You are authorized and directed to notify the Congress of this determination and of the necessity therefor contained in the attached justification [not set out in the Code], and to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

George Bush.