Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 676

Should the U.S. Remain in NATO & Work With Allies to Improve Their Defense Capabilities?

Argument in favor

The NATO alliance is the most successful military alliance in history between peacefully bringing about the Soviet Union’s downfall and its ongoing efforts to fight terrorism and deter a resurgent Russia. Congress should go on record as expressing America’s commitment to NATO in light of a rumored withdrawal from the alliance.

Gale's Opinion
···
01/20/2019
NATO is critical to our security and the idea of quitting is crazy. The notion that the US has somehow been cheated by NATO is dead wrong. The US spends what we think is necessary to protect our interests. NATO countries do not contribute to some common fund. Each country spends on their own military. We would like them to spend more, but no one owes us a dime. Further, the only time NATO's mutual defense pact has actually been invoked was in support of the US after 9/11. In other words, other countries spent their military dollars and lives to back us up, not the other way around. Only a fool would fail to recognize the benefit of having strong allies - which tells you what I think of Trump. People need to wake up and realize that quitting NATO would be Trump fulfilling Russia's deepest desire at the expense of our national security.
Like (313)
Follow
Share
Jerry's Opinion
···
01/22/2019
NATO is vitally important to world security. There would be a huge list of concerns if the US was to back out of NATO. It would fracture alliances with our allies and benefit Russia.
Like (153)
Follow
Share
Barbara's Opinion
···
01/22/2019
Of course we should stand with the post-war allies that we have had for seventy years, this is a ridiculous question!
Like (131)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

While the NATO alliance has been invaluable, it may not be so worthwhile in the future if allies don’t meet their defense spending obligations and the U.S. should consider leaving if that continues to the case. There also isn’t a genuine effort to leave NATO underway, so this bill is more about messaging than policy.

Donald's Opinion
···
01/20/2019
NATO has been a U.S. money pit. The need for NATO is no longer in the U.S. interest. The U.S. is NOT the world's police force. It is time to end the financial hemorage
Like (60)
Follow
Share
Reece's Opinion
···
01/23/2019
We cannot and should not be policing the world.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Joe's Opinion
···
01/22/2019
Europe is content with destroying itself from within. There is nothing the United States can do to stop the tidal wave of stupidity.
Like (16)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed January 22nd, 2019
    Roll Call Vote 357 Yea / 22 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedJanuary 17th, 2019

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H.R. 676?

This bill would make it U.S. policy to remain a member in good standing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), work with NATO members to meet their defense spending commitments, and reject efforts to withdraw the U.S. from NATO by prohibiting the use of funds for those activities. It’d also support robust U.S. funding for the European Deterrence Initiative, which bolsters the ability of NATO allies to deter and defend against Russian aggression.

Further, the bill would express the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court decision Goldwater v. Carter isn’t controlling legal precedent for U.S. withdrawal from a treaty. The 1979 decision rejected a legal question raised by Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) regarding President Jimmy Carter’s (D) withdrawing the U.S. from a defense treaty with Taiwan unilaterally. The Court held that matter wasn’t fit for judicial review and was fundamentally a political question because Congress hadn’t registered its disapproval by passing a resolution — which would’ve created grounds for constitutional review.

Impact

NATO allies; and Congress.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 676

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) introduced this bill to prevent the U.S. from withdrawing from the NATO alliance:

“The NATO alliance is a pillar of international peace, stability, and security, and serves as a deterrent against aggression and destabilization. We must promote our shared values of freedom, equality, and empowerment by continuing to invest in the institutions, programs, and people that enhance our national security.”

Original cosponsor Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) added:

“America’s alliances are a source of strength and security for our country. As a student of hsitory I can say that our defense alliances have preserved peace and enhanced economic prosperity since the end of the Second World War, and as a career military officer ad former base commander in Europe, I can confidently say that they remain critical to U.S. military operations today. Among our defense treaties, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization stands alone as the most successful military alliance in history. On the 70th anniversary of this historic treaty, it is right for Congress to express its support for the NATO Alliance, and to make clear to our allies and adversaries alike that the American people are absolutely committed to staying in NATO.”

On January 14, 2019, the New York Times published a report citing several anonymous Trump administration sources that President Donald Trump was privately considering leaving NATO. Days later, President Trump pushed back on those claims and said at the Pentagon:

“We will be with NATO 100 percent, but as I told the countries, you have to step up.”

This legislation has the support of 10 bipartisan cosponsors in the House, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.


Of Note: The U.S. became a founding member of the NATO alliance with 10 other European and North American nations when President Harry Truman signed and the Senate ratified the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949.

The portion of the Treaty which provides for the collective defense ― known as Article V ― holds that an armed attack on a member in Europe or North America should be considered an attack on all. Each member would be required to take whatever action it deems necessary, individually and in concert with other allies, to restore and preserve the security of the North Atlantic area. For this reason, Article V is sometimes known as the “Three Musketeers” clause of the Treaty because it’s “all for one and one for all.”

In the first few years of its existence, NATO didn’t have well defined military structure and primarily served as a political alliance. But communist North Korea’s shock invasion of South Korea ― and the support it received from the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union ― led to the development of NATO’s military command structure. It also led to more countries joining the NATO alliance, including West Germany, Greece, and Turkey during the 1950s as the Soviet Union created its rival Warsaw Pact alliance in 1955.

Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a large troop presence in West Germany as a deterrent to Soviet aggression against West Berlin or elsewhere in Europe. At any given time, roughly 250,000 American servicemembers were stationed in West Germany, France hosted up to 50,000 U.S. troops at various times while tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers were also stationed in the United Kingdom. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, troop levels decreased ― although about 35,000 Americans remain stationed in the reunified Germany.

NATO’s first joint military interventions came in Bosnia from 1992-1995 and during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in 1999. This period also saw the expansion of NATO, as former Warsaw Pact member nations joined their historical foes in the alliance, which has grown to 29 members at present.

Article V was invoked by NATO members for the first time in the alliance’s history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., and NATO members have fought alongside American troops in Afghanistan since then.

NATO also imposed a no-fly zone and carried out strikes against the military of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, provided training assistance to the Iraqi security forces after dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and carried out an anti-piracy campaign in the Gulf of Aden.

At a 2014 NATO summit, allies pledged to spend at least 2% of their nation’s GDP on defense to improve NATO’s interoperability by 2024, after some members struggled to sustain military operations in Afghanistan and Libya. At the time only the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Greece met that goal but they’ve since been joined by Poland, Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia in exceeding the 2% threshold for 2018. Based on current projections, 23 of the 29 current NATO members are expected to hit the target by 2024.

It also appears probable that the alliance will continue grow in the future. Macedonia will likely be the next nation to join NATO, while there have been discussions about future membership with the governments of Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia ― two countries which experienced Russian aggression in the post-Soviet era firsthand ― plus Bosnia and Herzegovina. Other potential future members include Finland and Sweden, where public opinion has trended toward membership since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, despite their historic neutrality.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Keith Anderson / Public Domain)

AKA

NATO Support Act

Official Title

To reiterate the support of the Congress of the United States for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and for other purposes.

    NATO is critical to our security and the idea of quitting is crazy. The notion that the US has somehow been cheated by NATO is dead wrong. The US spends what we think is necessary to protect our interests. NATO countries do not contribute to some common fund. Each country spends on their own military. We would like them to spend more, but no one owes us a dime. Further, the only time NATO's mutual defense pact has actually been invoked was in support of the US after 9/11. In other words, other countries spent their military dollars and lives to back us up, not the other way around. Only a fool would fail to recognize the benefit of having strong allies - which tells you what I think of Trump. People need to wake up and realize that quitting NATO would be Trump fulfilling Russia's deepest desire at the expense of our national security.
    Like (313)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO has been a U.S. money pit. The need for NATO is no longer in the U.S. interest. The U.S. is NOT the world's police force. It is time to end the financial hemorage
    Like (60)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is vitally important to world security. There would be a huge list of concerns if the US was to back out of NATO. It would fracture alliances with our allies and benefit Russia.
    Like (153)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course we should stand with the post-war allies that we have had for seventy years, this is a ridiculous question!
    Like (131)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is this a question?
    Like (80)
    Follow
    Share
    Our participation in NATO is essential to the safety of our country, and to that of the world as a whole. Personally speaking, I would like to see NATO form a task force led by our country to end the use of war as a tactic for generating income! I believe our country has actually become the chief contributor to this, and needs to lead the way out of this destructive and ineffective means of addressing global challenges! The use of weapons against other countries should be a last resort and require actual aggression by a country toward a NATO member! As long as the US continues to make aggression with weapons of destruction it’s go-to solution for the internal conflicts of non-NATO countries, we can not be effective in changing the dynamics that resulted in the Cold War. Defensive engagement for the protection of NATO members should dominate. Only when aggression by non-NATO countries threatens a NATO member should our soldiers be committed to a battlefield. They should be appropriately funded and readiness should be an ongoing priority, but diplomacy must be fully exhausted before aggression is employed. The President should consider the views of Congress and the Senate (Advise and Consent) in any such decisions.
    Like (69)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely we need to stand with our allies
    Like (62)
    Follow
    Share
    Putin is getting what he paid for... His stooge Trump is destabilizing the West for him.
    Like (54)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is an important component of our global strategy. We need to bring stability back by making it clear that the moves by Trump and Putin to undermine the alliance will not continue.
    Like (42)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes contrary to what Trump thinks.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is critical to our security, and only a Putin Puppet would even suggest we withdraw. Russia continues to be aggres
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is a success story. Created after WWII, its members have kept the peace in Europe by pledging to jointly defend any member country invaded or attacked by a non-member state. The military might of the US has contributed significantly to this pledge. It would embolden enemies if the US was to withdraw from NATO, just as a cost-saving measure. We should strengthen our traditional alliances, not weaken them.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    U.S. MUST Remain in NATO & Work With Allies to Improve Their Defense Capabilities🗽
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    YES YES YES! The only one who wants us out of NATO is Putin and other countries that are dictatorships
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, the US should remain in NATO. It’s not always about money. Leaving threatens worldwide stability and achieves another huge win for Putin.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    The President has expressed a desire to leave NATO. Republicans should be speaking to him about this.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    The reason this is a question is because Trump has signaled to the world that this has not been a “good deal” for the US. He believes (wrongly) that there is a bill (like rent) that nations need to pay or we end up footing it. Nations do not spend a large percentage of their wealth on defense because they spend on human needs like universal healthcare and education and infrastructure for their citizens. We need to stay IN NATO and get Trump and his corrupt cabinet OUT of government.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes absolutely we should stay in the organization that we (America) created and to suggest otherwise is foolhardy, ignorant, and asinine. We created the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) after WWII to protect and stabilize Europe against Russian ambition, adventurism, and their destructive dictatorial tendencies. Little has changed since then unless your view is blocked by ambition and greed for a mega hotel and money laundering with Putin.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO gives the US allies who have proven a willingness to come to the defense of members threaten by Russia. Russia has forcibly taken Crimean Peninsular from the Ukraine and threaten Poland. NATO serves as strong defense against Russian threats to Eastern Europe. NATO has also assisted the US in Afghanistan.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Now this is one of the dumbest questions I’ve heard as a Vet! But like they said in the Army? The Only Dumb Question is the Question that is Never Asked! Not only NATO but most members of it are close friends and allies of the Inited States! Which means You Got My Back and I Got Yours! Actually France is our oldest European ally as they had our back in our own revolution! We made peace with Britain and became friendly probably sometime after the War of 1812 and It still took a little time! As for many others like Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway,Denmark and especially now Eastern European countries that were formerly members of the Soviet Block or Warsaw Pact especially Poland and Czech Republic! We must maintain a strong military alliance not only with NATO as a whole but as we are friends, do trade with each individual Republic/ Monarchy this must remain strong! There is too much at stake on the world stage! Too many players that want to do damage to free nations and their people!
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE