PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 512.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 4, 1996
NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to: (1) assist the transition to full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe; and (2) work to construct a political and security relationship between an enlarged NATO and the Russian Federation. Expresses the sense of the Congress that in order to promote security in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine: (1) the United States should support the full and active participation of these countries in activities that will qualify them for NATO membership; (2) the U.S. Government should press the European Union to admit as soon as possible any country qualifying for membership; and (3) the United States and NATO should support military and peacekeeping initiatives between and among such countries, NATO countries, and Russia. Designates Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as eligible to receive certain assistance for transition to full membership in NATO. Requires the President to designate as eligible for such assistance other emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe that meet specified criteria. Authorizes appropriations for NATO enlargement assistance. Declares that the transfer of excess defense articles to countries intending to participate in NATO (including countries of NATO's southern flank) shall be given priority, to the maximum extent feasible, over the delivery of such articles to other countries, except certain countries specified under the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1995. Declares that the Congress endorses U.S. efforts to modernize the defense capability of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and any other countries the President designates under the NATO Participation Act of 1994, by exploring 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. Amends the NATO Participation Act of 1994 to establish a presidential and congressional procedure for termination of eligibility for assistance for Partnership for Peace countries which: (1) no longer meet certain eligibility criteria; (2) are hostile to the NATO alliance; or (3) pose a national security threat to the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Gilman, Benjamin A. [R-NY-20] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 512.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 353 - 65 (Roll No. 338).
House roll call 338 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 353 - 65 (Roll No. 338).
House roll call 338 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8147-8148)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8116-8125)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 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 Rules, 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 Rules, 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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.3564 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.3564 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.3564 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.3564 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.