PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2001
Persian Gulf Security Cost Fairness Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that relied on the United States for their military protection in 1990 and 1991 and that continue to depend on the United States for their security and stability should share in the responsibility for that stability and security commensurate with their national capabilities.Directs the President to seek to have each country in the Persian Gulf region to which the United States extends military protection take one or more specified financial and budgetary actions to increase their burden sharing.Authorizes the President, in seeking such actions or in responding to a country's failure to undertake one or more of them, to: (1) reduce the end strength level of members of the armed forces assigned to the Persian Gulf region; (2) impose on the country fees or other charges similar to those such countries impose on U.S. forces stationed in them; (3) suspend, modify, or terminate any bilateral security agreement the United States has with that country; or (4) reduce any U.S. bilateral assistance appropriated for that country.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.334 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.334 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.334 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.334 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.