H. R. 3616—233
of Korea) have participated in 14 international contingency
operations between fiscal years 1991 and 1998.
(6) The 1998 posture statements of the Navy and Air Force
included declarations that the pace of military operations over
fiscal year 1997 adversely affected the readiness of non-
deployed forces, personnel retention rates, and spare parts
inventories of the Navy and Air Force.
(b) INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED WITH FUNDING REQUESTS.—
Section 113 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding
after subsection (l), as added by section 915, the following new
subsection:
‘‘(m) INFORMATION TO ACCOMPANY FUNDING REQUEST
FOR
CONTINGENCY OPERATION.—Whenever the President submits to
Congress a request for appropriations for costs associated with
a contingency operation that involves, or likely will involve, the
deployment of more than 500 members of the armed forces, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
objectives of the operation. The report shall include a discussion
of the following:
‘‘(1) What clear and distinct objectives guide the activities
of United States forces in the operation.
‘‘(2) What the President has identified on the basis of
those objectives as the date, or the set of conditions, that
defines the endpoint of the operation.’’.
Subtitle C—Matters Relating to NATO and
Europe
SEC. 1221. LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES SHARE OF COSTS OF NATO
EXPANSION.
(a) LIMITATION.—The United States share of defined NATO
expansion costs may not exceed the lesser of—
(1) the amount equal to 25 percent of those costs; or
(2) $2,000,000,000.
(b) DEFINED NATO EXPANSION COSTS.—For purposes of sub-
section (a), the term ‘‘defined NATO expansion costs’’ means the
commonly funded costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) during fiscal years 1999 through 2011 for enlargement
of NATO due to the admission to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and
the Czech Republic.
SEC. 1222. REPORT ON MILITARY CAPABILITIES OF AN EXPANDED
NATO ALLIANCE.
(a) REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a report,
in both classified and unclassified form, on the planned future
military capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) with the anticipated accession of Poland, the Czech Repub-
lic, and Hungary to the NATO alliance. The report shall set forth
the following:
(1) An assessment of the tactical, operational, and strategic
military requirements, including interoperability, reinforce-
ment, and force modernization issues, as well as strategic and
territorial issues, that are raised by the inclusion of Poland,
the Czech Republic, and Hungary in the NATO alliance.
H. R. 3616—234
(2) The minimum military requirements to be satisfied
by those countries before accession to the NATO alliance in
April 1999.
(3) The improvements to common alliance military assets
that are necessary as a result of expanding the NATO alliance
to include those nations.
(4) The improvements to national capabilities of current
NATO members that would be necessitated by the inclusion
of those nations in the alliance.
(5) The necessary improvements to national capabilities
of the military forces of those new member nations.
(6) Any additional necessary improvements to common alli-
ance military assets of the military forces of those new members
for which funds are not planned to be included in the NATO
budget.
(7) The additional requirements, related to NATO expan-
sion, that the United States would agree to assist each new
member nation to meet on a bilateral basis.
(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The report shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the tactical and operational capabili-
ties of the military forces of Poland, the Czech Republic, and
Hungary.
(2) An assessment of the ability of each such new member
nation to meet the minimum military requirements upon acces-
sion to the NATO alliance in April 1999, and the ability of
that nation to provide logistical, command and control, and
other vital infrastructure required for alliance defense (as speci-
fied in Article V of the NATO Charter), including a description
in general terms of alliance plans for reinforcing each new
NATO member nation during a crisis or war and detailing
means for deploying both United States and other NATO forces
from current member states and from the continental United
States or other United States bases worldwide and, in particu-
lar, describing plans for ground reinforcement of Hungary.
(3) An assessment of the ability of the current and new
alliance members to deploy and sustain combat forces in alli-
ance defense missions conducted in the territory of any of
the new member nations, as specified in Article V of the NATO
Charter.
(4) A description of projected defense programs through
2009 (shown on an annual basis and cumulatively) of each
current and new alliance member nation—
(A) including planned investments in capabilities
pursuant to Article V to ensure that—
(i) the nation’s military force structure, defense
planning, command structures, and force goals promote
NATO’s capacity to project power when the security
of a NATO member is threatened; and
(ii) NATO members possess national military
capabilities to rapidly deploy forces over long distances,
sustain operations for extended periods, and operate
jointly with the United States in high intensity con-
flicts as well as potential alliance contingency oper-
ations;
(B) showing both planned national efforts as well as
planned alliance common efforts; and
H. R. 3616—235
(C) describing any deficiencies in investments by cur-
rent or new alliance member nations.
(5) A detailed comparison and description of the differences
in scope, methodology, and assessments of common alliance
or national responsibilities, or any other factor related to alli-
ance capabilities between (A) the report on alliance expansion
costs prepared by the Department of Defense (in the report
submitted to Congress in February 1998 entitled ‘‘Report to
the Congress on the Military Requirements and Costs of NATO
Enlargement’’), and (B) the report on alliance expansion costs
prepared by NATO collectively and referred to as the ‘‘NATO
estimate’’, issued at Brussels in November 1997.
(6) Any other factor that, in the judgment of the Secretary
of Defense, bears upon the strategic, operational, or tactical
military capabilities of an expanded NATO alliance.
(c) SUBMISSION
OF REPORT.—The report shall be submitted
to Congress not later than March 15, 1999.
SEC. 1223. REPORTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN SECU-
RITY AND DEFENSE IDENTITY.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTS.—The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives
in accordance with this section reports on the development of the
European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) within the NATO
Alliance that would enable the Western European Union (WEU),
with the consent of the NATO Alliance, to assume the political
control and strategic direction of NATO assets and capabilities
made available by the Alliance.
(b) REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED.—The reports required to be
submitted under subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) An initial report, submitted not later than December
15, 1998, that contains a discussion of the actions taken, and
the plans for future actions, to build the European Security
and Defense Identity, together with the matters required under
subsection (c).
(2) A semiannual report on the progress made toward
establishing the European Security and Defense Identity,
submitted not later than June 15 and December 15 of each
year after 1998.
(c) CONTENT OF REPORTS.—The Secretary shall include in each
report under this section the following:
(1) A discussion of the arrangements between NATO and
the Western European Union for the release, transfer, monitor-
ing, return, and recall of NATO assets and capabilities.
(2) A discussion of the development of such planning and
other capabilities by the Western European Union that are
necessary to provide political control and strategic direction
of NATO assets and capabilities.
(3) A discussion of the development of terms of reference
for the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, with
respect to the European Security and Defense Identity.
(4) A discussion of the arrangements for the assignment
or appointment of NATO officers to serve in two positions
concurrently (commonly referred to as ‘‘dual-hatting’’).
H. R. 3616—236
(5) A discussion of the development of the Combined Joint
Task Force (CJTF) concept, including lessons-learned from the
NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia.
(6) Identification within the NATO Alliance of the types
of separable but not separate capabilities, assets, and support
assets for Western European Union-led operations.
(7) Identification of separable but not separate head-
quarters, headquarters elements, and command positions for
command and conduct of Western European Union-led oper-
ations.
(8) The conduct by NATO, at the request of and in coordina-
tion with the Western European Union, of military planning
and exercises for illustrative missions.
(9) A discussion of the arrangements between NATO and
the Western European Union for the sharing of information,
including intelligence.
(10) Such other information as the Secretary considers
useful for a complete understanding of the establishment of
the European Security and Defense Identity within the NATO
Alliance.
(d) TERMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The require-
ment to submit reports under subsection (b)(2) terminates upon
the submission by the Secretary under that subsection of a report
in which the Secretary states that the European Security and
Defense Identity has been fully established.
Subtitle D—Other Matters
SEC. 1231. LIMITATION ON ASSIGNMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES
FOR CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS PURPOSES.
(a) LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS RAPIDLY
DEPLOYABLE MISSION HEADQUARTERS.—If members of the Armed
Forces are assigned during fiscal year 1999 to the United Nations
Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, the number of members
so assigned may not exceed eight at any time during that year.
(b) PROHIBITION.—No funds available to the Department of
Defense may be used—
(1) for a monetary contribution to the United Nations for
the establishment of a standing international force under the
United Nations; or
(2) to assign or detail any member of the Armed Forces
to duty with a United Nations Stand By Force.
SEC. 1232. PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTION OF ARMED FORCES UNDER
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAME-
WORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no provision of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, or any regulation issued pursuant
to such protocol, shall restrict the training or operations of the
United States Armed Forces or limit the military equipment pro-
cured by the United States Armed Forces.
(b) WAIVER.—A provision of law may not be construed as
modifying or superseding the provisions of subsection (a) unless
that provision of law—
(1) specifically refers to this section; and