To achieve increased contributions by European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to offset the costs of maintaining United States military personnel and installations in these nations.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 1, 1993
Declares that the President should enter into revised host-nation agreements with the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under which such nations agree that, for FY 1995 and thereafter, these nations will: (1) pay at least 50 percent of the personnel costs, and 75 percent of the nonpersonnel costs, of maintaining U.S. military personnel and installations in Europe; (2) relieve the U.S. armed forces of all tax liability that is incurred under the laws of the NATO member nation and community where such forces are located; and (3) ensure that goods and services furnished in these nations to U.S. armed forces are provided at minimum cost and without the imposition of user fees. Prohibits the use of appropriated funds to maintain U.S. military personnel and installations in such nations after FY 1995 unless the President certifies to the Congress that they have entered into revised agreements. Makes this Act inapplicable if the U.S. armed forces are actively engaged in armed conflict in Europe or the threat of imminent U.S. engagement in conflict in Europe exists.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1621 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1621 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1621 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1621 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.