PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 7, 2002
Transatlantic Security and NATO Enhancement Resolution of 2002 - (Sec. 4) Declares that it is U.S. policy that: (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should remain the primary institution through which European and North American allies address security issues of transatlantic concern; (2) NATO members should reaffirm, at the Prague Summit in the fall of 2002, NATO's importance; (3) NATO should continue to strengthen national and collective capacities to respond to new threats, agree to consider intensifying consultation among political and military leaders and developing comprehensive capabilities to counter those threats, make clear commitments to remedy shortfalls in specified areas necessary to carry out its missions, and ensure a more equitable sharing of contributions; (4) the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense should fully use their offices to encourage the NATO allies to commit the resources necessary to upgrade their capabilities to deploy forces, sustain operations, and operate jointly with the United States; and (5) commit to enhanced intelligence-sharing, law enforcement, police, and judicial cooperation and expanded information exchanges.(Sec. 5) Calls for NATO to: (1) seek to strengthen its relations with the Russian Federation and to support the NATO-Russia Council; and (2) underscore to the Federation, without jeopardizing U.S. security interests or the effectiveness of NATO as a defensive alliance, that NATO enlargement will enhance the security of all countries in Europe.(Sec. 6) Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) NATO should extend invitations at the Summit for accession negotiations to any appropriate candidate country that meets the objectives and targets for NATO membership; (2) the candidate countries of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia should be commended on significant progress made toward meeting objectives for NATO membership; (3) Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia should be invited to begin the accession process to join the Alliance at the Prague Summit, should accede on a common date before the next NATO summit, and should continue to participate in the Membership Action Plan until accession; and (4) the NATO enlargement process should continue beyond the inclusion of such candidates.
People & committees
Rep. Gallegly, Elton [R-CA-23] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 358 - 9, 1 Present (Roll no. 444). (text: CR H7112-7114)
House roll call 444 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 358 - 9, 1 Present (Roll no. 444).(text: CR H7112-7114)
House roll call 444 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7131-7132)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 468.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7112-7117)
Mr. Gallegly moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1179-1180)
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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: 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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.Res.468 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.