Dam Safety Overview and the Federal Role

Summary: Dams provide various services, including flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply, but they require maintenance, and sometimes rehabilitation and repair, to ensure public and economic safety. Dam failure or incidents can endanger lives and property, as well as result in loss of services provided by the dam. Federal government agencies reported owning 3% of the more than 90,000 dams listed in the National Inventory of Dams (NID), including some of the largest dams in the United States. The majority of NID-listed dams are owned by private entities, nonfederal governments, and public utilities. Although states have regulatory authority for over 69% of NID-listed dams, the federal government plays a key role in dam safety policies for both federal and nonfederal dams.

Summary: Congress has expressed interest in dam safety over several decades, often prompted by critical events such as the 2017 near failure of Oroville Dam's spillway in California. Dam failures in the 1970s that resulted in the loss of life and billions of dollars of property damage spurred Congress and the executive branch to establish the NID, the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP), and other federal activities. These programs and activities have increased safety inspections, emergency planning, rehabilitation, and repair. Since the late 1990s, some federal agency dam safety programs have shifted from a standards-based approach to a risk-management approach. A risk-management approach seeks to mitigate failure of dams and related structures through inspection programs, risk reduction measures, and rehabilitation and repair, and it prioritizes structures whose failure would pose the greatest threat to life and property.

Summary: Responsibility for dam safety is distributed among federal agencies, nonfederal agencies, and private dam owners. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) NDSP facilitates collaboration among these stakeholders. The National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended (Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; P.L. 104-303 ; 33 U.S.C. Â§Â§467f et seq.), authorizes the NDSP at $13.4 million annually. In FY2019, Congress appropriated $9.2 million for the program, which provided training and $6.8 million in state grants, among other activities.

Summary: The federal government is directly responsible for maintaining the safety of federally owned dams. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation own 42% of federal dams, including many large dams. The remaining federal dams are owned by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Defense, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tennessee Valley Authority, Department of Energy, and International Boundary and Water Commission. Congress has provided various authorities for these agencies to conduct dam safety activities, rehabilitation, and repair.

Summary: Congress also has enacted legislation authorizing the federal government to regulate or rehabilitate and repair certain nonfederal dams. A number of federal agencies regulate dams associated with hydropower projects, mining activities, and nuclear facilities and materials. Selected nonfederal dams may be eligible for rehabilitation and repair assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USACE, and FEMA. For example, in 2016, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322 ) authorized FEMA to administer a high hazard dam rehabilitation grant program to provide funding assistance for the repair, removal, or rehabilitation of certain nonfederal dams.

Summary: Congress may consider how to address the structural integrity of dam infrastructure and mitigate the risk of dam safety incidents, either within a broader infrastructure investment effort or as an exclusive area of interest. Congress may reexamine the federal role for dam safety, while considering that most of the nation's dams are nonfederal. Congress may reevaluate the level and allocation of appropriations to federal dam safety programs, rehabilitation and repair for federal dams, and financial assistance for nonfederal dam safety programs and dams. In addition, Congress may maintain or amend policies for disclosure of dam safety information when considering the federal role in both providing dam safety risk and response information to the public while also maintaining security of these structures.

Dams may provide flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, navigation, and water supply. Dams also entail financial costs for construction, operation and maintenance (O&M), rehabilitation (i.e., bringing a dam up to current safety standards), and repair, and they often result in environmental c hange (e.g., alteration of riverine habitat). Federal government agencies reported owning 3% of the more than 90,000 dams in the National Inventory of Dams (NID), including some of the country's largest dams (e.g., the Bureau of Reclamation's Hoover Dam in Nevada is 730 feet tall with storage capacity of over 30 million acre-feet of water). Most dams in the United States are owned by private entities, state or local governments, or public utilities.

Dams may pose a potential safety threat to populations living downstream of dams and populations surrounding associated reservoirs. As dams age, they can deteriorate, which also may pose a potential safety threat. The risks of dam deterioration may be amplified by lack of maintenance, misoperation, development in surrounding areas, natural hazards (e.g., weather and seismic activity), and security threats. Structural failure of dams may threaten public safety, local and regional economies, and the environment, as well as cause the loss of services provided by a dam.

In recent years, several dam safety incidents have highlighted the public safety risks posed by the failure of dams and related facilities. From 2015 to 2018, over 100 dams breached in North Carolina and South Carolina due to record flooding. In 2017, the near failure of Oroville Dam's spillway in California resulted in a precautionary evacuation of approximately 200,000 people and more than $1.1 billion in emergency response and repair. In 2018, California began to expedite inspections of dams and associated spillway structures.

Congress has expressed an interest in dam safety over several decades, often prompted by destructive events. Dam failures in the 1970s resulting in the loss of life and billions of dollars in property damage prompted Congress and the executive branch to establish the NID, the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP), and other federal activities related to dam safety. Following terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the federal government focused on dam security and the potential for acts of terrorism at major dam sites. As dams age and the population density near many dams increases, attention has turned to mitigating dam failure through dam inspection programs, rehabilitation, and repair, in addition to preventing and preparing for emergencies.

This report provides an overview of dam safety and associated activities in the United States, highlighting the federal role in dam safety. The primary federal agencies involved in these activities include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The report also discusses potential issues for Congress, such as the federal role for nonfederal dam safety; federal funding for dam safety programs, rehabilitation, and repair; and public awareness of dam safety risks. The report does not discuss in detail emergency response from a dam incident, dam building and removal policies, or state dam safety programs.

Dam safety generally focuses on preventing dam failure and incidentsâepisodes that, without intervention, likely would have resulted in dam failure. Challenges to dam safety include aging and inadequately constructed dams, frequent or severe floods (for instance, due to climate change), misoperation of dams, and dam security. The risks associated with dam misoperation and failure also may increase as populations and development encroach upstream and downstream of some dams. Safe operation and proper maintenance of dams and associated structures is fundamental for dam safety. In addition, routine inspections by dam owners and regulators determine a dam's hazard potential (see " Hazard Potential " below), condition (see " Condition Assessment " below), and possible needs for rehabilitation and repair.

The NID, a database of dams in the United States, is maintained by USACE. For the purposes of inclusion in the NID, a dam is defined as any artificial barrier that has the ability to impound water, wastewater, or any liquid-borne material, for the purpose of storage or control of water that (1) is at least 25 feet in height with a storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet, (2) is greater than 6 feet in height with a storage capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, or (3) poses a significant threat to human life or property should it fail (i.e., high or significant hazard dams). Thousands of dams do not meet these criteria; therefore, they are not included in the NID.

The most common type of dam is an earthen dam (see Figure 1 ), which is made from natural soil or rock or from mining waste materials. Other dams include concrete dams, tailings dams (i.e., dams that store mining byproducts), overflow dams (i.e., dams regulating downstream flow), and dikes (i.e., dams constructed at a low point of a reservoir of water). This report does not cover levees, which are manmade structures designed to control water movement along a landscape.

The nation's dams were constructed for various purposes: recreation, flood control, ecological (e.g., fisheries management), irrigation and water supply, hydroelectric, mining, navigation, and others (see Figure 2 ). Dams may serve multiple purposes. Dams were built to engineering and construction standards and regulations corresponding to the time of their construction. Over half of the dams with age reported in the NID were built over fifty years ago. Some dams, including older dams, may not meet current dam safety standards, which have evolved as scientific data and engineering have improved over time.

Dam failures and incidentsâepisodes that, without intervention, likely would have resulted in dam failureâmay occur for various reasons. Potential causes include floods that may exceed design capacity; faulty design or construction; misoperation or inadequate operation plans; overtopping, with water spilling over the top of the dam; foundation defects, including settlement and slope instability; cracking caused by movements, including seismic activity; inadequate maintenance and upkeep; and piping, when seepage through a dam forms holes in the dam (see Figure 3 ).

Engineers and organizations have documented dam failure in an ad hoc manner for decades. Some report over 1,600 dam failures resulting in approximately 3,500 casualties in the United States since the middle of the 19 th century, although these numbers are difficult to confirm. Many failures are of spillways and small dams, which may result in limited flooding and downstream impact compared to large dam failures. Flooding that occurs when a dam is breached may not result in life safety consequences or significant property damage. Still, some dam failures have resulted in notable disasters in the United States.

Between 2000 and 2019, states reported 294 failures and 537 nonfailure dam safety incidents. Recent eventsâincluding the evacuation of approximately 200,000 people in California in 2017 due to structural deficiencies of the spillway at Oroville Damâhave led to increased attention on the condition of dams and the federal role in dam safety. From 2015 to 2018, extreme storms (including Hurricane Matthew) and subsequent flooding resulted in over 100 dam breaches in North Carolina and South Carolina. Floods resulting from hurricanes in 2017 also filled reservoirs of dams to record levels in some regions: for example, USACE's Addicks and Barker Dams in the Houston, TX, area; the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's Guajataca Dam in Puerto Rico; and USACE's Herbert Hoover Dike in Florida. The March 2006 failure of the private Kaloko Dam in Hawaii killed seven people, and the 2003 failure of the Upper Peninsula Power Company's Silver Lake Dam in Michigan caused more than $100 million in damage.

Federal guidelines set out a hazard potential rating to quantify the potential harm associated with a dam's failure or misoperation. As described in Table 1 , the three hazard ratings (low, significant, and high) do not indicate the likelihood of failure; instead, the ratings reflect the amount and type of damage that a failure would cause. Figure 4 depicts the number of dams listed in the NID classified as high hazard in each state; 65% of dams in the NID are classified as low hazard. From 2000 to 2018, thousands of dams were reclassified increasing the number of high hazard dams from 9,921 to 15,629. According to FEMA, the primary factor increasing dams' hazard potential is hazard creep âdevelopment upstream and downstream of a dam, especially in the dam failure inundation zone (i.e., downstream areas that would be inundated by water from a possible dam failure). Reclassification from low hazard potential to high or significant hazard potential may trigger more stringent requirements by regulatory agencies, such as increased spillway capacity, structural improvements, more frequent inspections, and creating or updating an emergency action plan (EAP). Some of these requirements may be process and procedure based, and others may require structural changes for existing facilities.

The NID includes condition assessmentsâassessments of relative dam deficiencies determined from inspectionsâas reported by federal and state agencies (see Table 2 ). Of the 15,629 high hazard potential dams in the 2018 NID, 63% had satisfactory or fair condition assessment, 15% had a poor or unsatisfactory condition assessment, and 22% were not rated. For dams rated as poor and unsatisfactory, federal agencies and state regulatory agencies may take actions to reduce risk, such as reservoir drawdowns, and may convey updated risk and response procedures to stakeholders.

In the context of dam safety, risk is comprised of three parts:

the likelihood of a triggering event (e.g., flood or earthquake), the likelihood of a dam safety deficiency resulting in adverse structural response (e.g., dam failure or spillway damage), and the magnitude of consequences resulting from the adverse event (e.g., loss of life or economic damages).

Preventing dam failure involves proper location, design, and construction of structures, and regular technical inspections, O&M, and rehabilitation and repair of existing structures. Preparing and responding to dam safety concerns may involve community development planning, emergency preparation, and stakeholder awareness. Dam safety policies may address risk by focusing on preventing dam failure while preparing for the consequences if failure occurs.

Rehabilitation typically consists of bringing a dam up to current safety standards (e.g., increasing spillway capacity, installing modern gates, addressing major structural deficiencies), and repair addresses damage to a structure. Rehabilitation and repair are different from day-to-day O&M. According to a 2019 study by ASDSO, the combined total cost to rehabilitate the nonfederal and federal dams in the NID would exceed $70 billion. The study projected that the cost to rehabilitate high hazard potential dams in the NID would be approximately $3 billion for federal dams and $19 billion for nonfederal dams. Some stakeholders project that funding requirements for dam safety rehabilitation and repair will continue to grow as infrastructure ages, risk awareness progresses, and design standards evolve.

Dam safety processes and productsâsuch as emergency action plans (EAPs) and inundation mapsâmay support informed decisionmaking to reduce the risk and consequences of dam failures and incidents. An EAP is a formal document that identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to minimize property damage and loss of life. EAPs identify the actions and responsibilities of different parties in the event of an emergency, such as the procedures to issue early warning and notification messages to emergency management authorities. EAPs also contain inundation maps to show emergency management authorities the critical areas for action in case of an emergency (see Figure 5 for a map illustration of potential inundation areas due to a dam failure). Many agencies that are responsible for dam oversight require or encourage dam owners to develop EAPs and often oversee emergency response simulations (i.e., tabletop exercises) and field exercises. Requirements for EAPs often focus on high hazard dams. In 2018, the percentage of high hazard potential dams in the United States with EAPs was 74% for federally owned dams and 80% for state-regulated dams.

Federal agencies have developed tools to assist dam owners and regulators, along with emergency managers and communities, to prepare, monitor, and respond to dam failures and incidents.

FEMA's RiskMAP program provides flood maps, tools to assess the risk from flooding, and planning and outreach support to communities for flood risk mitigation. A RiskMAP project may incorporate the potential risk of dam failure or incidents. FEMA's Decision Support System for Water Infrastructure Security (DSS-WISE) Lite allows states to conduct dam failure simulations and human consequence assessments. Using DSS-WISE Lite, FEMA conducted emergency dam-break flood simulation and inundation mapping of 36 dams in Puerto Rico during the response to Hurricane Maria in 2017. DamWatch is a web-based monitoring and informational tool for 11,800 nonfederal flood control dams built with assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When these dams experience a critical event (e.g., threatening storm systems), essential personnel are alerted via an electronic medium and can implement EAPs if necessary. The U.S. Geological Survey's ShakeCast is a post-earthquake awareness application that notifies responsible parties of dams about the occurrence of a potentially damaging earthquake and its potential impact at dam locations. The responsible parties may use the information to prioritize response, inspection, rehabilitation, and repair of potentially affected dams.

Federal Role and Resources for Dam Safety

In addition to owning dams, the federal government is involved in multiple areas of dam safety through legislative and executive actions. Following USACE's publication of the NID in 1975 as authorized by P.L. 92-367, the Interagency Committee on Dam Safetyâestablished by President Jimmy Carter through Executive Order 12148âreleased safety guidelines for dams regulated by federal agencies in 1979. In 1996, the National Dam Safety Program Act (Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; P.L. 104-303 ) established the National Dam Safety Program, the nation's principal dam safety program, under the direction of FEMA. Congress has reauthorized the NDSP four times and enacted other dam safety programs and activities related to federal and nonfederal dams. A chronology of selected federal dam safety actions is provided in the box below.

The NDSP is a federal program established to facilitate collaboration among the various federal agencies, states, and owners with responsibility for dam safety. The NDSP also provides dam safety information resources and training, conducts research and outreach, and supports state dam safety programs with grant assistance. The NDSP does not mandate uniform standards across dam safety programs. Figure 6 shows authorization of appropriations levels for the NDSP and appropriations for the program, including grant funding distributed to states.

Advisory Bodies of the National Dam Safety Program

The National Dam Safety Review Board (NDSRB) advises FEMA's director on dam safety issues, including the allocation of grants to state dam safety programs. The board consists of five representatives appointed from federal agencies, five state dam safety officials, and one representative from the private sector. The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) serves as a forum for coordination of federal efforts to promote dam safety. ICODS is chaired by FEMA and includes representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); the International Boundary and Water Commission; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior (DOI), and Labor (DOL).

Every state (except Alabama) has established a regulatory program for dam safety, as has Puerto Rico. Collectively, these programs have regulatory authority for 69% of the NID dams. State dam safety programs typically include safety evaluations of existing dams, review of plans and specifications for dam construction and major repair work, periodic inspections of construction work on new and existing dams, reviews and approval of EAPs, and activities with local officials and dam owners for emergency preparedness.

Funding levels and a lack of state statutory authorities may limit the activities of some state dam safety programs. For example, the Model State Dam Safety Program , a guideline for developing state dam safety programs, recommends one full-time employee (FTE) for every 20 dams regulated by the agency. As of 2019, one stateâCaliforniaâmeets this target, with 75 employees and 1,246 regulated dams. Most state dam safety programs reportedly have from two to seven FTEs. In addition, some statesâAlabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Vermont, and Wyomingâdo not have the authority to require dam owners of high hazard dams to develop EAPs.

The National Dam Safety Program Act, as amended (Section 215 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; P.L. 104-303 ; 33 U.S.C. Â§Â§467f et seq.), authorizes state assistance programs under the NDSP. Two such programs are discussed below (see " FEMA High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program " for information about FEMA's dam rehabilitation program initiated in FY2019).

Grant A ssistance to State Dam Safety Programs . States working toward or meeting minimal requirements as established by the National Dam Safety Program Act are eligible for assistance grants. The objective of these grants is to improve state programs using the Model State Dam Safety Program as a guide. Grant assistance is allocated to state programs via a formula: one-third of funds are distributed equally among states participating in the matching grant program and two-thirds of funds are distributed in proportion to the number of state-regulated dams in the NID for each participating state. Grant funding may be used for training, dam inspections, dam safety awareness workshops and outreach materials, identification of dams in need of repair or removal, development and testing of EAPs, permitting activities, and improved coordination with state emergency preparedness officials. For some state dam safety programs, the grant funds support the salaries of FTEs that conduct these activities. This money is not available for rehabilitation and repair activities. In FY2019, FEMA distributed $6.8 million in dam safety program grants to 49 states and Puerto Rico (ranging from $48,000 to $465,000 per state).

Training for State Inspectors . At the request of states, FEMA provides technical training to dam safety inspectors. The training program is available to all states by request, regardless of state participation in the matching grant program.

Progress of the National Dam Safety Program

At the end of each odd-numbered fiscal year, FEMA is to submit to Congress a report describing the NDSP's status, federal agencies' progress at implementing the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety , progress achieved in dam safety by states participating in the program, and any recommendations for legislation or other actions (33 U.S.C. Â§â¯467h). Federal agencies and states provide FEMA with annual program performance assessments on key metrics such as inspections, rehabilitation and repair activities, EAPs, staffing, and budgets. USACE provides summaries and analysis of NID data (e.g., inspections and EAPs) to FEMA.

Some of the metrics for the dam safety program, such as the percentage of state-regulated high hazard potential dams with EAPs and condition assessments, have shown improvement. The percentage of these dams with EAPs increased from 35% in 1999 to 80% in 2018, and condition assessments of these dams increased from 41% in 2009 to 85% in 2018. The percentage of state-regulated high hazard potential dams inspected has remained relatively stable during the same periodâbetween 85% to 100% dams inspected based on inspection schedules.

The major federal water resource management agencies, USACE and Reclamation, own 42% of federal dams, including many large dams ( Figure 7 ). The remaining federal dams typically are smaller dams owned by other agencies, including land management agencies (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service), the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among others. The federal government is responsible for maintaining dam safety of federally owned dams by performing maintenance, inspections, rehabilitation, and repair work. No single agency regulates all federally owned dams; rather, each federal dam is regulated according to the policies and guidance of the individual federal agency that owns the dam. The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety provides basic guidance for federal agencies' dam safety programs.

The Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety recommends that agencies formally inspect each dam that they own at least once every five years; however, some agencies require more frequent inspections and base the frequency of inspections on the dam's hazard potential. Inspections may result in an update of the dam's hazard potential and condition assessment (see Figure 8 for the status of hazard potential and condition assessments of federal dams). Inspections typically are funded through agency O&M budgets.

After identifying dam safety deficiencies, federal agencies may undertake risk reduction measures or rehabilitation and repair activities. Agencies may not have funding available to immediately undertake all nonurgent rehabilitation and repair; rather, they generally prioritize their rehabilitation and repair investments based on various forms of assessment and schedule these activities in conjunction with the budget process. At some agencies, dam rehabilitation and repair needs must compete for funding with other construction projects (e.g., buildings and levees).

Federal agencies traditionally approached dam safety through a deterministic, standards-based approach by mainly considering structural integrity to withstand maximum probable floods and maximum credible earthquakes. Many agencies with large dam portfolios (e.g., Reclamation and USACE) have since moved from this solely standards-based approach for their dam safety programs to a portfolio risk management approach to dam safety, including evaluating all modes of failure (e.g., seepage of water and sediment through a dam) and prioritizing rehabilitation and repair efforts. The following sections provide more information on specific policies at these agencies.

USACE implements a dam safety program consisting of inspections and risk analyses for USACE operated dams, and performs risk reduction measures or project modifications to address dam safety risks. USACE uses a Dam Safety Action Classification System (DSAC) based on the probability of failure and incremental risk (see Table 3 ).

Congress provides funding for USACE's various dam safety activities through the Investigations, O&M, and Construction accounts. The Inventory of Dams line item in the Investigations account provides funding for the maintenance and publication of the NID. The O&M account provides funding for routine O&M of USACE dams and for NDSP activities, including assessments of USACE dams.

The Construction account provides funding for nonroutine dam safety activities (e.g., dam safety rehabilitation and repair modifications). The Dam Safety and Seepage/Stability Correction Program conducts nonroutine dam safety evaluations and studies of extremely high-risk or very high-risk dams (DSAC 1 and DSAC 2). Under the program, an issue evaluation study may evaluate high-risk dams, dam safety incidents, and unsatisfactory performance, and then provide determinations for modification or reclassification. If recommended, a dam safety modification study would further investigate dam deficiencies and propose alternatives to reduce risks to tolerable levels; a dam safety modification report is issued if USACE recommends a modification. USACE funds construction of dam safety modifications through project-specific line items in the Construction account. Modification of USACE-constructed dams for safety purposes may be cost shared with nonfederal project sponsors using two cost-sharing authorities: major rehabilitation and dam safety assurance. USACE schedules modifications under all of these programs based on funding availability.

Major rehabilitation is for significant, costly, one-time structural rehabilitation or major replacement work. Major rehabilitation applies to dam safety repairs associated with typical degradation of dams over time. Nonfederal sponsors are to pay the standard cost share based on authorized purposes. USACE does not provide support under major rehabilitation for facilities that were turned over to local project sponsors for O&M after they were constructed by USACE.

Dam safety assurance cost sharing may apply to all dams built by USACE, regardless of the entity performing O&M. Modifications are based on new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in state-of-the-art design or construction criteria that are deemed necessary for safety purposes. Application of the authority provided by Section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 ( P.L. 99-662 ; 33 U.S.C. Â§467n) reduces a sponsor's responsibility to 15% of its agreed nonfederal cost share. In 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined cost sharing for USACE dam safety repairs. GAO recommended policy clarification for the usage of the "state-of-the-art" provision and improved communication with nonfederal sponsors. Section 1139 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322 ) mandated the issuance of guidance on the state-of-the-art provision, and in March 2019, USACE began to implement a new policy that allows for the state-of-the-art provision across its dam portfolio. Prior to the guidance, USACE applied the authority in January 2019 to lower the nonfederal cost share of repairing the Harland County Dam in Nebraska by approximately $2.1 million (about half of the original amount owed).

Recent USACE dam safety construction projects have had costs ranging from $10 million to $1.8 billion; most cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In FY2018, USACE funded $268 million in work on 10 dam safety construction projects at DSAC 1 and DSAC 2 dams, and funded dam safety studies at 39 projects on DSAC 2 and DSAC 3 dams. In FY2019, USACE estimated a backlog of $20 billion to address DSAC 1 and DSAC 2 dam safety concerns.

Reclamation's dam safety program, authorized by Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, as amended ( P.L. 95-578 ; 43 U.S.C. 506 et seq.), provides for inspection and repairs to qualifying projects at Reclamation dams. Reclamation conducts dam safety inspections through the Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams (SEED) program using Dam Safety Priority Ratings (DSPR; see Table 3 ). Corrective actions, if necessary, are carried out through the Initiate Safety of Dams Corrective Action (ISCA) program. With ISCA appropriations, Reclamation funds modifications on priority structures based on an evolving identification of risks and needs.

The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act Amendments of 1984 ( P.L. 98-404 ) requires a 15% cost share from sponsors for dam safety modifications when modifications are based on new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in state-of-the-art design or construction criteria that are deemed necessary for safety purposes. In 2015, P.L. 114-113 amended the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to increase Reclamation's authority, before needing congressional authorization to approve a modification project, from $1.25 million to $20 million. The act also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to develop additional project benefits, through the construction of new or supplementary works on a project in conjunction with dam safety modifications, if such additional benefits are deemed necessary and in the interests of the United States and the project. Nonfederal and federal funding participants must agree to a cost share related to the additional project benefits.

In FY2019, Congress appropriated $71 million for ISCA, which funded 18 dam safety modifications. FY2019 funding also included $20.3 million for SEED and $1.3 million for the Dam Safety Program. As of FY2019, Reclamation estimated that the current portfolio of dam safety modification projects through FY2030 would cost between $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion.

The Commissioner of Reclamation also serves as the Department of the Interior's (DOI's) coordinator for dam safety and advises the Secretary of the Interior on program development and operation of the dam safety programs within DOI. In this role, Reclamation provides training to other DOI agencies with dam safety programs and responsibilities, and Reclamation's dam safety officer represents DOI on the ICODS.

Some federal agencies are involved in dam safety activities of nonfederal dams; these activities may be regulatory or consist of voluntary coordination (see box on "Nonfederal Dams on Federal Lands").

Congress has enacted legislation to regulate hydropower projects, certain mining activities, and nuclear facilities and materials. These largely nonfederal facilities and activities may utilize dams for certain purposes. States also may have jurisdiction or ownership over these facilities, activities, and associated dams, and therefore may oversee dam safety in coordination with applicable federal regulations.

Under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§791a-828c), FERC has the authority to issue licenses for the construction and operation of hydroelectric projects, among other things. Many of these projects involve dams, some of which may be owned by a state or local government. According to FERC, approximately 3,036 dams are regulated by FERC's dam safety program. Of these, 1,374 are nonfederal dams listed in the 2018 NID; 791 nonfederal dams are classified as high hazard, with 144 in California, 87 in New York, and 72 in Michigan. Before FERC can issue a license, FERC reviews and approves the designs and specifications of dams and other structures for the hydropower project. Each license is for a stated number of years (generally 30-50 years), and must undergo a relicensing process at the end of the license.

Along with nonfederal hydropower licensing, FERC is responsible for dam inspection during and after construction. FERC staff inspect regulated dams at regular intervals, and the owners of certain dams require more thorough inspections. According to 18 C.F.R. Â§12, every five years, an independent consulting engineer, approved by FERC, must inspect and evaluate projects with dams higher than 32.8 feet, or with a total storage capacity of more than 2,000 acre-feet. These inspections are to include a detailed review of the design, construction, performance, and current condition assessment of the entire project. Inspections are to include examinations of dam safety deficiencies, project construction and operation, and safety concerns related to natural hazards. Should an inspection identify a deficiency, FERC would require the project owner to submit a plan and schedule to remediate the deficiency. FERC then is to review, approve, and monitor the corrective actions until the licensees have addressed the deficiency. If a finding is highly critical, FERC has the authority to require risk-reduction measures immediately; these measures often include reservoir drawdowns.

Following the spillway incident in 2017 at Oroville Dam, CA, California's Department of Water Resources engaged an independent forensic team to develop findings and opinions on the causes of the incident. FERC also convened an after-action panel to evaluate FERC's dam safety program at Oroville focusing on the original design, construction, and operations, including the five-year safety review process. Both the after-action panel and the forensic team released reports in 2018 that raised questions about the thoroughness of FERC's oversight of dam safety. Among other findings, the panel's report concluded that the established FERC inspection process, if properly implemented, would address most issues that could result in a failure; however, the panel's report stated that several failures occurred in the last decade because certain technical details, such as spillway components and original design, were overlooked and not addressed in the inspection or by the owner. For example, both reports highlighted inspectors' limited attention to spillways compared to more attention for main dams. After the Oroville incident, a FERC-led initiative to examine dam structures comparable to those at Oroville Dam identified 27 dam spillways at FERC-licensed facilities with varying degrees of safety concerns; FERC officials stated they are working with dam licensees to address the deficiencies.

A 2018 GAO review also found that FERC had been prioritizing individual dam inspections and responses to urgent dam safety incidents, but had not conducted portfolio-wide risk analyses. FERC told GAO in January 2019 that it had begun developing a risk-assessment program to assess safety risks across the inventory of regulated dams and to help guide safety decisions. In addition, FERC produced draft guidelines in 2016 for risk-informed decisionmaking, with a similar risk management approach as USACE and Reclamation. FERC has allowed dam owners, generally those with a portfolio of dams, to pilot risk-informed decisionmaking using the draft guidelines for their inspections and prioritizing rehabilitation and repairs instead of using the current deterministic, standards-based approach.

At mining sites, dams may be constructed for water supply, water treatment, sediment control, or the disposal of mining byproducts and waste (i.e., tailings dams).

Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (P.L. 91-173; 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulates private dams used in or resulting from mining. According to MSHA, approximately 1,640 dams are in its inventory. Of these, 447 are in the 2018 NID, with 220 classified as high hazard. As a regulator, MSHA develops standards and conducts reviews, inspections, and investigations to ensure mine operators comply with those standards. According to agency policies, MSHA is to inspect each surface mine and associated dams at least two times a year and each underground mine and associated dams at least four times a year.

Under Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (SMCRA; P.L. 95-87 ; 30 U.S.C. Â§Â§1251-1279), DOI's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) administers the federal government's responsibility to regulate active coal mines to minimize environmental impacts during mining and to reclaim affected lands and waters after mining. OSMRE regulations require private companies to demonstrate that dams are in accordance with federal standards (30 C.F.R. Â§715.18). According to the 2018 DOI Annual Report on Dam Safety, OSMRE regulates 69 dams at coal mines under OSMRE's federal and Indian lands regulatory authority. Twenty four states have primary regulation authority (i.e., primacy) for dams under SMCRA authority: for primacy, states must meet the requirements of SMCRA and be no less effective than the federal regulations. If the dam is noncompliant with the approved design at any time during construction or the life of the dam's operation, OSMRE or an approved state regulatory program is to instruct the permittee to correct the deficiency immediately or cease operations.

Regulation of Dams Related to Nuclear Facilities and Materials

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.) as an independent federal agency to regulate and license nuclear facilities and the use of nuclear materials as authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (P.L. 83-703). Among its regulatory licensing responsibilities pertaining to dams, NRC regulates uranium mill tailings dams, storage water pond dams at in situ leach (ISL) uranium recovery facilities, and dams integral to the operation of other licensed facilities that may pose a radiological safety-related hazard should they fail. Currently, NRC directly regulates eight dams. If NRC shares regulatory authority with another federal agency (e.g., FERC, USACE, Reclamation), NRC will defer regulatory oversight of the dam to the other federal agency. Under NRC's authority to delegate regulatory authority, states may regulate dams associated with nuclear activities based on agreements with NRC (i.e., agreement state programs).

Nonfederal dam owners generally are responsible for investing in the safety, rehabilitation, and repair of their dams. In 2019, ASDSO estimated that $65.9 billion was needed to rehabilitate nonfederal dams; of that amount, $18.7 billion was needed for high hazard nonfederal dams. Twenty-three states provide a limited amount of assistance for these activities through a grant or low-interest revolving loan program. Some federal programs may specifically provide limited assistance to nonfederal dams; these programs are described below. In addition, more general federal programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant Program, offer broader funding opportunities for which dam rehabilitation and repair may qualify under certain criteria.

FEMA High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program

The WIIN Act authorized FEMA to administer a high hazard dam rehabilitation grant program, which would provide funding assistance for the repair, removal, or rehabilitation of nonfederal high hazard potential dams. Congress authorized the program to provide technical, planning, design, and construction assistance in the form of grants to nonfederal sponsors. Nonfederal sponsorsâsuch as state governments or nonprofit organizationsâmay submit applications to FEMA on behalf of eligible dams and then distribute any grant funding received from FEMA to these dams. Eligible dams must be in a state with a dam safety program, be classified as high hazard, have developed a state-approved EAP, fail to meet the state's minimum dam safety standards, and pose an unacceptable risk to the public. Participating dams also must comply with certain federal programs and laws (e.g., flood insurance programs, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act), have or develop hazard mitigation and floodplain management plans, and commit to provide O&M for 50 years following completion of the rehabilitation activity.

The WIIN Act authorized appropriations of $10 million annually for FY2017 and FY2018, $25 million for FY2019, $40 million for FY2020, and $60 million annually for FY2021 through FY2026 for the High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program (see Figure 9 ). FEMA is to distribute grant money to nonfederal sponsors based on the following formula: one-third of the total funding is to be distributed equally among the nonfederal sponsors that applied for funds, and two-thirds of the total is to be distributed among the nonfederal sponsors proportional to the number of eligible high hazard dams represented by nonfederal sponsors. Individual grants to nonfederal sponsors are not to exceed 12.5% of total program funds or $7.5 million, whichever is less. Grant assistance must be accompanied by a nonfederal cost share of no less than 35%.

Congress appropriated $10 million in FY2019 for FEMA's High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), enacted on February 15, 2019. FEMA released a notice of funding opportunity on May 22, 2019, for proposals to be submitted by nonfederal sponsors by July 8, 2019. In FY2019, 26 nonfederal sponsors were awarded grants ranging from $153,000 to $1,250,000 to provide technical, planning, design, and construction assistance for rehabilitation of eligible high hazard potential dams.

NRCS Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides assistance for selected watershed activities generally related to managing water on or affecting agricultural or rural areas. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 83-566) and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) provide the authority for NRCS to construct dams through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program.

By the end of 2019, more than half of the 11,847 watershed dams constructed with assistance from NRCS will have reached the end of their designed life spans. Congress created a rehabilitation program, known as the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, in Section 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-472 ; 16 U.S.C. Â§1012). Under this authority, watershed dams constructed with assistance from NRCS are eligible for assistance from the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The rehabilitation program is intended to extend the approved service life of the dams and bring them into compliance with applicable safety and performance standards or to decommission the dams so they no longer pose a threat to life and property. From 2000 to 2018, the program authorized the rehabilitation of 288 dams.

NRCS may provide 65% of the total rehabilitation costs; this may include up to 100% of the actual construction cost and no O&M costs. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program has discretionary funding authority of up to $85 million annually. Since FY2000, Congress has appropriated more than $700 million for rehabilitation projects. The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program has received an average annual appropriation of $11.2 million over the last five years, including $10 million in FY2019.

USACE Rehabilitation and Inspection Program

USACE's Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP, or the P.L. 84-99 program) is used mainly for levees, but may provide federal support for selected nonfederal dams that meet certain criteria (e.g., the reservoir behind the dam has storage capacity for a 200-year flood event, otherwise referred to as a flood event having 0.5% chance of occurring in any given year). RIP may provide assistance for flood control works if a facility is damaged by floods, storms, or seismic activity. To be eligible for RIP assistance, damaged flood control works must be active in RIP (i.e., subject to regular inspections) and in a minimally acceptable condition at the time of damage. As of 2017, USACE considered 33 nonfederal dams as "active" in RIP. Because annual appropriations for USACE's Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account are limited primarily to flood preparedness activities, USACE generally uses supplemental appropriations for major repairs through RIP.

Congress may consider oversight and legislation relating to dam safety in the larger framework of infrastructure improvements and risk management, or as an exclusive area of interest. Congress may deliberate the federal role for dam safety, especially as most of the dams in the NID are nonfederal. Further, Congress may evaluate the level and allocation of appropriations to federal dam safety programs, project modifications for federal dams, and financial assistance for nonfederal dam safety programs and nonfederal dams. In addition, Congress may maintain or amend policies for disclosure of dam safety information when considering the federal role in both providing dam safety risk and response information to the public (including those living downstream of dams) while also maintaining security of these structures.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has developed and overseen national dam safety standards and has provided technical assistance for the design, construction, and O&M of dams. These activities, as well as the enhancement of federal agencies' dam safety programs, have improved certain dam safety metrics; nonetheless, deficiencies in federal and state programs may have contributed to recent incidents (e.g., the 2017 spillway incident at Oroville Dam, California).

Some federal agencies have received criticism of their dam safety programs. For example, in 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General found that DOD did not have a policy requiring installations to implement a dam safety inspection program consistent with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety . Since the findings, some service branches of DOD reported developing new dam safety policies including the creation of a dam safety program for the U.S. Marine Corps. Congress may consider other oversight activities similar to, for example, direction requiring USACE, Reclamation, and FERC to brief the Senate Committee on Appropriations on efforts to incorporate lessons learned from Oroville into dam inspection protocols across all three agencies and their state partners. Although incidents and reviews may result in recommending improvements to federal dam safety programs, some agencies report financial and other limitations to revising or expanding their dam safety programs. Congress may consider these obstacles, as identified in its oversight activities, in determining whether new authorities or appropriations are needed.

Some stakeholders argue that the federal government should continue its activities in maintaining and regulating dams owned by federal agencies and nonfederal dams under federal regulatory authority, while state dam safety programs should retain responsibility for state-regulated dams by following the guidelines of the Model State Dam Safety Program . However, some stakeholders, such as the Association of State Floodplain Managers and ASDSO, advocate for a larger federal role in nonfederal dam safety. They argue that many state dam safety programs and nonfederal dam owners have limited resources and authorities to inspect, conduct O&M, rehabilitate, and repair nonfederal dams. However, land use and zoning are considered nonfederal responsibilities, and some may argue against encroaching on state and local sovereignty and against the potential growth of the federal government's role.

Dam removal is a potential policy alternative to rehabilitation and repair of high hazard dams. A dam-removal policy incentive would likely require, for example, evaluation of the current level of use of the dam, whether some or all of its functions could be economically replaced by nonstructural measures, and whether O&M, rehabilitation, and repair are feasible (e.g., the dam owner is absent or repairs are too costly). Congress has previously considered incentives to encourage states to remove dams deemed unnecessary or infeasible to rehabilitate. For instance, Congress authorized dam removal as an activity under FEMA's High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program and authorized USACE to study the structural integrity and possible modification or removal for certain dams located in Vermont. When considering dam removal for dam safety purposes, policymakers also may weigh removal costs and the loss of recognized benefits from the dam.

Individual dam O&M, rehabilitation, and repair can range in cost from thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars. The responsibility for these expenses lies with dam owners; however, many nonfederal dam owners are not willing or able to fund these costs. As of 2019, ASDSO estimated that rehabilitation and repair of nonfederal high hazard dams in the NID would cost approximately $18.7 billion (overall rehabilitation and repair for nonfederal dams in the NID were estimated at $65.9 billion). Some, such as ASDSO and American Society of Civil Engineers, call for increased federal funding to rehabilitate and repair these dams. They note that upfront federal investment in rehabilitation and repair may prevent loss of lives and large federal outlays in emergency spending if a high hazard dam were to fail. Twenty-three states have created a state-funded grant or low-interest revolving loan program to assist dam owners with repairs. ASDSO states that the programs seem to vary significantly in the scope and reach of the financial assistance available. Congress authorized the " FEMA High Hazard Dam Rehabilitation Grant Program " in the WIIN Act, and subsequently provided appropriations of $10 million to the program in Division A (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ). For FY2020, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended no money for the grant program, while the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $10 million.

Congress may consider the tradeoffs in focusing federal resources on federal dams versus nonfederal dams. While federal agencies report owning only 3% of dams in the NID, many of these dams are considered large dams that can affect large populations and may require costly investments in dam safety.

In FY2019, USACE estimated a backlog of $20 billion to address DSAC 1 and DSAC 2 dam safety concerns. USACE has stated that investments in dam rehabilitation and repair above recent levels of appropriations would help alleviate risks and the likelihood of a major dam incident. Reclamation estimates that the current portfolio of dam safety modification projects for Reclamation-owned dams would cost $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion through FY2030. To address this backlog, Congress has considered authorizing mandatory funding from the Reclamation Fund to provide for dam O&M, rehabilitation, and repair, so the funding would not be subject to the appropriations process. While some Members of Congress and stakeholders support this proposal, such as the Western States Water Council, other Members of Congress argue that increasing mandatory funding would remove congressional oversight and control of the Reclamation Fund and result in increases in spending and budget deficits, among other things. Agencies with portfolios of smaller dams (e.g., Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service) report that their biggest challenge for dam safety is lack of resources, especially when dam safety is competing against other facility projects (e.g., buildings, levees). The Fish and Wildlife Service suggested in the FY2016-FY2017 National Dam Safety Program Report that downgrading small impoundments from the definition of a dam would alleviate some financial burdens. The agency reasoned that small impoundments that narrowly qualify as dams based on height and/or storage volume obligate the owners and regulators to perform dam safety functions with little likelihood of providing significant dam safety benefits or any genuine risk reduction.

Congress may consider continuing current spending levels for dam safety. Under current funding, some metrics for the NDSP, such as the percentage of dams with EAPs and condition assessments, have shown improvement (see " Progress of the National Dam Safety Program "). Similar metrics have improved for some federal agencies that own dams, and certain federal dam safety programs have implemented or are beginning to implement risk-based dam safety approaches to managing their dam portfolios (e.g., USACE and Reclamation).

Some stakeholders (e.g., a committee convened by ASDSO, the Association of State Floodplain Managers) have recommended alternative funding structures to congressional appropriations, such as a federal low interest, revolving loan program or financial credit for disaster assistance. For example, Congress has previously authorized a Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, creating a new mechanismâcredit assistance including direct loans and loan guaranteesâfor USACE to provide assistance for water resource projects (e.g., flood control and storm damage reduction). Congress may consider amending WIFIA to include making rehabilitation and repair of nonfederal dams eligible for credit assistance, or for establishing a new low-interest loan guarantee program. Although Congress authorized secured and direct loans when it enacted WIFIA in 2014, Congress has not provided appropriations to USACE to implement the programs as of FY2019. Similarly, Congress would need to provide both the authority and appropriations for these financial incentives for dam safety programs.

According to some advocacy groups, many Americans are unaware that they live downstream of a dam. Further, if they are aware, the public may not know if a dam is deficient, has an EAP, or could cause destruction if it failed. A lack of public awareness may stem from a lack of access to certain dam safety information, the public's confidence in dam integrity, or other reasons. Dam safety processes and products (such as inspections, EAPs, and inundation maps) are intended to support decisionmaking and enhance community resilience. Some of the information and resulting products may not be readily available to all community members and stakeholders because access to dam safety information is generally restricted from public access.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks drew attention to the security of many facilities, including the nation's water supply and water quality infrastructure, including dams. Damage or destruction of a dam by a malicious attack (e.g., terrorist attack, cyberattack) could disrupt the delivery of water resource services, threaten public health and the environment, or result in catastrophic flooding and loss of life. As a consequence of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, current federal policy and practices restrict public access to most information related to the condition assessment of dams and consequences of dam or component failure. For example, according to USACE, dams in the NID meet the definition of critical infrastructure as defined by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001 ( P.L. 107-56 ). Vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure are restricted from public access. Currently USACE considers condition assessments as a type of vulnerability assessment; therefore, dam condition assessments contained in the NID are restricted only to approved government users. However, FEMA reported that following a 2017 recommendation from the NDSRB, USACE is considering making condition assessments of NID dams unrestricted for public access.

Congress may consider reevaluating the appropriate amount of information to share (e.g., inundation scenarios from dam failure) to address public safety concerns and what amount and type of information not to share to address concerns about malicious use of that information. There are tradeoffs involved in sharing certain types of data. For example, sharing inundation mapping data with the public may raise awareness of the potential risk of living downstream of a dam, but misinterpretation of that information could cause unnecessary alarm in downstream communities. Currently, inundation mapping data generally are shared with emergency managers and responders rather than with the public at large. Some argue that disclosure to these officials is sufficient, as it provides the information to the officials who bear responsibilities for emergency response. In addition to managing information flow to the public to address risk, Congress might consider the risk of individuals or groups using the information for malicious purposes; namely, the concerns originally raised following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.


NATO: Key Issues Following the 2019 Leaders’ Meeting

Summary: Heads of state and government from NATO's 30 member states met in London, United Kingdom (UK), on December 3-4, 2019. Two key goals for the meeting were to commemorate the alliance's past achievementsâ2019 marks NATO's 70 th anniversaryâand to advance efforts to address new and emerging security challenges, including Russian aggression, terrorism and instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and cyber and hybrid threats. The meeting also exposed heightened political tension within the alliance and divergent views on a range of issues, including U.S. policy toward NATO and Europe, relations with NATO member Turkey, and relations with Russia.

Summary: In the six years since Russia occupied Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine, the United States has played a key role in renewing NATO's focus on territorial defense and deterring Russian aggression. Among other measures, NATO member states have deployed an Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP), totaling about 4,500 troops to the three Baltic States and Poland and including increased military exercises and training activities in Central and Eastern Europe. At the behest of the United States, the alliance also has sought to bolster its response to security threats posed by growing instability in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily through partnerships and training activities. NATO continues to lead a "train and assist" mission of about 16,500 troops in Afghanistan. In February 2020, NATO defense ministers agreed to expand NATO's training mission in Iraq, which currently consists of between 300 and 500 military trainers.

Summary: The London meeting came at a tense time for NATO. Some allied governments argue that growing divergence between the United States and many European allies on a range of key foreign and security policy issues, from Iran's nuclear program to fighting the Islamic State terrorist organization in Syria, has impeded cooperation in NATO and exposed strategic rifts within the alliance. Some European allies have expressed particular concern about what they portray as a lack of U.S. coordination on policy in Syria, where many European countries have been assisting U.S.-led efforts to counter the Islamic State. Many allies also have criticized fellow NATO member Turkey for its military operations in Syria and its acquisition of a Russian-made air defense system.

Summary: Although many Members of Congress have criticized specific developments within NATOâregarding burden sharing, for exampleâCongress as a whole has demonstrated consistent support for NATO. During the Trump Administration, congressional support at times has been viewed by some as an effort to reassure allies troubled by President Trump's criticisms of the alliance. Over the past several years, both chambers of Congress have passed legislation reaffirming U.S. support for NATO (e.g., H.Res. 397, H.R. 676 , H.R. 5515 / P.L. 115-232 , and H.Res. 256 in the 115 th Congress; S. 1790 / P.L. 116-92 in the 116 th Congress) and in some cases have sought to limit the President's ability to withdraw from NATO unilaterally ( H.R. 676 ; S. 1790 / P.L. 116-92 ). At the same time, Congress continues to assess NATO's utility and value to the United States, and some Members are concerned about key challenges facing NATO, including burden sharing, managing relations with Russia and China, and divergent threat perceptions within the alliance.

Heads of state and government from NATO's 30 member states met in London, United Kingdom (UK), on December 3-4, 2019. NATO and U.S. officials highlighted the following key deliverables from the London Leaders' Meeting:

Completion of a new Readiness Initiative, under which the alliance would have at its disposal 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons, and 30 naval combat vessels ready to use within 30 days. Declaration of space as a new operational domain for NATO and advances in combatting cyber and hybrid threats, including establishing new baseline requirements for telecommunications infrastructure. Increased defense spending by European allies and Canada. Renewed commitment to NATO's mission in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and North Africa. Agreement to assess China's impact on NATO and transatlantic security. Initiation of a new "forward-looking reflection process â¦ to further strengthen NATO's political dimension including consultation."

More broadly, NATO officials sought to highlight NATO's achievements and the importance of strong U.S.-European relations to these efforts. The United States was the driving proponent of NATO's creation in 1949 and has been the unquestioned leader of the alliance as it has evolved from a collective defense organization of 12 members focused on deterring the Soviet Union to a globally engaged security organization of 30 members. Successive U.S. Administrations have viewed U.S. leadership of NATO as a cornerstone of U.S. national security strategy that brings benefits ranging from peace and stability in Europe to the political and military support of 28 allies, including many of the world's most advanced militaries.

The London meeting came at a tense time for NATO, however. Some European allies question the Trump Administration's commitment to NATO and have criticized the Administration for a perceived unilateral approach to foreign policy issues, including the October 2019 drawdown of U.S. forces from Syria. Many allies also have criticized fellow NATO member Turkey for its military operations in Syria and its acquisition of a Russian-made air defense system.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledges ongoing tensions within the alliance but stresses that continued transatlantic cooperation has enabled NATO to be more active today than it has been in decades. Trump Administration officials maintain that the United States remains committed to NATO, and in London, President Trump stressed that NATO "has a great purpose." U.S. officials also highlight the Administration's successful efforts in 2017 and 2018 to substantially increase funding for the U.S. force presence in Europe and note that Secretary General Stoltenberg has credited President Trump with playing a role in securing defense spending increases across the alliance in recent years. Critics of the Trump Administration's NATO policy maintain that renewed Russian aggression has been a key factor behind such increases.

At the London meeting, NATO leaders stressed their commitment to advancing existing readiness and deterrence initiatives and to confronting emerging security challenges, including by declaring space as an operational domain for NATO. The allies also reinforced their commitment to NATO's ongoing mission in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism efforts and discussed the implications for NATO of China's growing investment in, and engagement with, Europe.

In the five years since Russia occupied Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine, the United States has supported efforts to renew NATO's focus on territorial defense and deterring Russian aggression. Among other measures, NATO member states have deployed an Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP) totaling about 4,500 troops to the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and Poland; increased military exercises and training activities in Central and Eastern Europe; and established new NATO command structures in six Central and Eastern European countries.

In London, the allies announced progress on several new initiatives intended to enhance NATO's readiness to respond swiftly to an attack on a NATO member, including by reinforcing the aforementioned EFP battlegroups. A cornerstone of these efforts is full implementation by the end of 2019 of the so-called Four-Thirties Readiness Initiative, proposed by the United States in 2018, under which NATO would have 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons, and 30 naval combat vessels ready to use within 30 days.

Although the allies have continued to support and contribute to NATO deterrence initiatives, some analysts question the effectiveness and sustainability of these efforts. For example, the authors of a February 2016 report by the RAND Corporation contend that "as presently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members." Some allies, including Poland and the Baltic States, have urged other NATO members to deploy more forces to the region to reinforce that alliance's deterrence posture.

Other allies, including leaders in Western European countries such as Germany, Italy, and France, have stressed the importance of a dual-track approach to Russia that complements deterrence with dialogue. These allies contend that efforts to rebuild cooperative relations with Moscow should receive as much attention as efforts to deter Russia. Accordingly, these allies are reluctant to endorse permanently deploying troops in countries that joined NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union due to concerns that this would violate the terms of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act; in consideration of these terms, NATO's EFP has been referred to as "continuous" but rotational rather than "permanent."

Addressing New Security Challenges: Cyber, Hybrid, and Space

In London, the allies highlighted progress in responding to cyber and hybrid threats and formally declared space as a new operational domain for the alliance.

Since naming cyber defense a core NATO competence in 2014, the alliance has adopted measures to protect NATO networks from cyberattacks and to assist member states in bolstering national cyber defense capabilities. NATO has made available Cyber Rapid Reaction Teams to help allies respond to cyberattacks, and in 2018 it announced plans to establish a new NATO Cyberspace Operations Center in Brussels. The new cyber center will focus on integrating allies' national cyber capabilities into NATO missions and operations. Although NATO member states maintain full ownership of these capabilitiesâas they do with other military capabilities deployed to NATO missionsâthe new operations center is tasked with incorporating cyber defense into all levels of NATO planning and operations.

NATO also has sought to bolster capabilities to counter heightened hybrid warfare threats, including propaganda, deception, sabotage, and other nonmilitary tactics. NATO's focus has been on enhancing strategic communications, developing appropriate exercise scenarios, and strengthening coordination with the European Union (EU) to respond to hybrid threats. At their meeting in 2018, NATO leaders agreed to establish counter-hybrid support teams to provide tailored assistance to allies in preparing against and responding to hybrid activities. NATO deployed the first of these teams to Montenegro in November 2019. As discussed in more detail below (see " Assessing China's Impact on NATO and Transatlantic Security "), in London, NATO leaders endorsed new baseline requirements for allies with respect to the resilience of telecommunications infrastructure, including 5G systems.

In London, NATO leaders formally declared space as an operational domain for NATO, alongside air, land, sea, and cyber. Secretary General Stoltenberg stated that the declaration reflects a consensus desire within NATO to strengthen defense and deterrence in all areas, including space, where NATO allies reportedly own about half of the approximately 2,000 satellites estimated to be in orbit currently. Stoltenberg has stressed that NATO has no intention of deploying weapons in space and that NATO's approach will remain defensive and in line with international law. Others have questioned whether China, which has a growing presence in space, might view the NATO declaration as a provocation.

A primary focus of the Trump Administration's policy toward NATO has been to urge allies to increase their national defense budgets in line with past agreements intended to ensure an equitable distribution of defense responsibilities within the alliance. In London, President Trump continued these calls but also welcomed substantial increases in European allies' defense spending over the past five years. Secretary General Stoltenberg has credited President Trump with playing a key role in spurring increases in European allied defense spending over the past five years. However, critics of the U.S. President express concern that his strident criticism of what he considers insufficient defense spending by some allies could damage NATO cohesion and credibility.

In 2006, NATO members informally agreed to aim to allocate at least 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) to their national defense budgets annually and to devote at least 20% of national defense expenditure to procurement and related research and development. These targets were formalized at NATO's 2014 Wales Summit, when the allies pledged to halt declines in defense expenditures and "move towards the 2% guideline within a decade."

U.S. and NATO officials say they are encouraged that defense spending by European allies and Canada has grown for five consecutive years (see Figure 1 ). According to Secretary General Stoltenberg, European allies and Canada have added $130 billion in defense spending since 2014; the figure is expected to rise to $400 billion by the end of 2024. In 2014, three allies met the 2% guideline; in 2019, 9 allies are expected to have met the 2% guideline, and 16 allies are expected to have met the 20% benchmark for spending on major equipment. President Trump and others continue to criticize those NATO members perceived to be reluctant to achieve defense-spending targets, however. One such member is Europe's largest economy, Germany, which currently spends about 1.38% of GDP on defense and has plans to reach 1.5% of GDP by 2024.

Although all allied governments agreed to the Wales commitments, many, including Germany, emphasize that allied contributions to ongoing NATO missions and the effectiveness of allied military capabilities should be considered as important as total defense spending levels. For example, an ally spending less than 2% of GDP on defense could have more modern, effective military capabilities than an ally that meets the 2% target but allocates most of that funding to personnel costs and relatively little to ongoing missions and modernization.

Analysts on both sides of the Atlantic also have argued that a relatively narrow focus on defense inputs (i.e., the size of defense budgets) should be accompanied by an equal, if not greater, focus on defense outputs (i.e., military capabilities and the effectiveness of contributions to NATO missions and activities). The alliance's target to devote at least 20% of each member's national defense expenditure to new equipment and related research and development reflects this goal.

Secretary General Stoltenberg has emphasized a broad approach to measuring contributions to the alliance, using a metric of "cash, capabilities, and contributions." Proponents of this approach argue that a broad assessment of allied contributions that takes into account factors beyond the 2% of GDP defense spending metric would be more appropriate given NATO's wide-ranging strategic objectives, some of which may require capabilities beyond the military sphere.

In London, allied leaders approved a U.S. proposal to reduce assessed U.S. contributions, and increase German contributions, to NATO's relatively small pot of common funds . National contributions to NATO's common fundsâabout $2.6 billion total in 2019âpay for the day-to-day operations of NATO headquarters, as well as some collective NATO military assets and infrastructure. According to NATO, in 2018, the U.S. share of NATO's common-funded budgets was about 22% , or about $570 million, followed by Germany (15%), France (11%), and the UK (10%). The U.S. proposal approved in London would bring both the U.S. and German contributions to about 16% each.

In London, the allies renewed their commitment to NATO's ongoing training mission in Afghanistan, despite speculation about a possible drawdown of U.S. forces in the country. In January 2015, following the end of its 11-year-long combat mission in Afghanistan, NATO launched the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to train, advise, and assist Afghan security forces. Between 2015 and late 2018, NATO allies and partners steadily matched U.S. increases in troop levels to RSM. As of February 2020, about 8,500 of the 16,551 troops contributing to RSM were from NATO members and partner countries other than the United States. After the United States (8,000 troops), the top contributors to the mission were Germany (1,300), the UK (1,100), Italy (895), non-NATO-member Georgia (871), and Romania (797).

NATO leaders welcomed the February 29, 2020, Joint Declaration between the United States and Afghanistan and agreement between the United States and the Taliban in pursuit of a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan. Secretary General Stoltenberg said that NATO would implement adjustments, including troop reductions, to its mission as outlined in the agreements; he stressed, however, that such actions would be "conditions-based." NATO continues to "reaffirm its longstanding commitment to Afghanistan and ongoing support for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces." In the past, European allies have expressed concern that they were not consulted on possible drawdown plans and stressed that any such plans be carried out in close coordination with the allies.

President Trump consistently has called on NATO to expand its counterterrorism efforts beyond Afghanistan, and terrorist threats emanating from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are key European concerns as well. Over the past several years, NATO leaders have launched several new initiatives aimed at countering terrorism and addressing instability in the MENA region. These initiatives include the noncombat NATO Training Mission in Iraq, carried out by between 300 and 500 allied military trainers; the Package on the South, an initiative that includes a range of partnership activities to enhance cooperation initiatives with MENA countries such as Tunisia and Jordan; and establishment of a NATO Regional Hub for the South in Naples, Italy, to coordinate NATO responses to crises emanating from the South. NATO also has deployed aerial surveillance aircraft (AWACS) to assist the global coalition fighting the Islamic State terrorist organization.

Several factors have limited enhanced NATO engagement on security challenges emanating from the MENA region. These factors include a belief among some allies that the EU is the appropriate institution to lead Europe's response to terrorism and migration issues and a related reluctance to cede leadership on these issues to NATO. France, for example, has advocated strong European responses to terrorism and conflict in the Middle East but has generally opposed a larger role for NATO. Some allies also disagree on what the appropriate response should be to some of the security challenges in the MENA region, with some appearing hesitant to involve NATO in a way that could be seen as endorsing military action.

The Trump Administration and some Members of Congress have urged NATO to assess the security implications of growing Chinese investment in Europe and to work to counter potential negative impacts on transatlantic security. As expressed in the December 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy , U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned that "China is gaining a strategic foothold in Europe by expanding its unfair trade practices and investing in key industries, sensitive technologies, and infrastructure." U.S. officials express particular concern about Chinese investment in critical infrastructure and telecommunications systems, such as 5G networks. Some U.S. defense officials have suggested that the United States might limit military cooperation and intelligence sharing with allies that allow Chinese investment in 5G networks.

In London, NATO formally adopted an October 2019 plan by NATO defense ministers to update the alliance's baseline requirements for civilian telecommunications to reflect emerging concerns about 5G technology. The allies agreed to assess the risks to communications systems associated with cyber threats, and the consequences of foreign ownership, control, or direct investment. Although the EU is attempting to develop common guidelines to govern contracting decisions on 5G networks, these decisions would remain the prerogative of individual national governments.

As noted above, U.S. officials have warned European allies and partners that using Huawei or other Chinese 5G equipment could impede intelligence sharing with the United States due to fears of compromised network security. Although some allies, such as the UK and Germany, have said they would not prevent Chinese companies from bidding on 5G contracts, these allies have stressed that they would not contract with any companies that do not meet their national security requirements. On January 28, 2020, the UK government announced that "high-risk vendors" including, but not limited to, Huawei, would be excluded from sensitive "core" parts of 5G networks and locations deemed critical national infrastructure, and that such vendors' access to nonsensitive parts of networks would be limited to 35%. Other countries, such as Poland, have considered formally excluding Huawei from their telecommunications sector, and Czech Republic intelligence officials publicly labeled Huawei a national security risk.

Despite U.S. concerns about China's growing footprint in Europe, Administration officials have expressed optimism that the United States and Europe can work together to meet the various security and economic issues posed by a rising China. Analysts, too, cite numerous concerns shared on both sides of the Atlantic and contend that joint U.S.-European pressure on China would be more effective than either partner's individual dealings with China.

On March 27, 2020, North Macedonia became NATO's 30 th member (see Figure 2 for a map of NATO members and accession dates). NATO officials had hoped North Macedonia's accession would be complete in time for the London Leaders' Meeting, but elections in some member states delayed the accession ratification process. The U.S. Senate approved U.S. ratification on October 22, 2019.

Deliberations in London drew attention to heightened tension and divergent views within the alliance on a range of issues, including U.S. policy toward NATO and Europe, Turkey's standing as a member of the alliance, EU security and defense policy, and NATO's relations with Russia. Disagreement within the alliance on whether and how to respond to these and other issues has prompted some, including French President Emmanuel Macron, to question NATO's strategic direction and future. Many officials and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic also have suggested that President Trump's vocal criticism of NATO and the lack of transatlantic coordination on policies related to Syria and Afghanistan have seriously undermined the alliance. Secretary General Stoltenberg and others maintain that disagreement among allies is not a new phenomenon and stress that "Europe and North American are doing more together in NATO today than we have for decades."

In an apparent effort to address diverging views within NATO, in London, the allies agreed to initiate a "forward-looking reflection process â¦ to further strengthen NATO's political dimension including consultation." On March 31, 2020, Secretary General Stoltenberg announced the appointment of a group of 10 experts tasked with recommending ways to "reinforce Alliance unity, increase political consultation and coordination between Allies, and strengthen NATO's political role. The group will be cochaired by former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell and former German Interior and Defense Minister Thomas De MaziÃ¨re.

Allied Concerns Regarding the U.S. Commitment to NATO

Some analysts and allied leaders question the Trump Administration's level of commitment to NATO and express concern that President Trump's criticisms of the alliance could cause lasting damage to NATO cohesion and credibility. In addition to admonishing European allies for failing to meet agreed NATO defense spending targets President Trump has repeatedly questioned NATO's value to the United States. Although he is not the first U.S. President to press the allies to increase defense spending, none has done so as stridently and none has called into question the U.S. commitment to NATO as openly or to the same extent as President Trump. In London, President Trump expressed that his Administration remains committed to NATO and to upholding European security, including through increased funding for U.S. defense activities in Europe such as the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI).

Some NATO member state governments argue that growing divergence between the United States and many European allies on a range of key foreign and security policy issues, from Iran's nuclear program to fighting the Islamic State terrorist organization in Syria, has impeded cooperation in NATO and exposed strategic rifts within the alliance. Some European allies have expressed particular concern about what they portray as a lack of U.S. coordination on policy in Syria, where many European countries have been fighting alongside the United States to counter the Islamic State. Some maintain that the U.S. drawdown of forces in Syria in October 2019 enabled Turkey's subsequent military operations against Kurdish forces in the country.

In a widely reported November 2019 interview, French President Macron cited these divergences when he proclaimed that, "we are currently experiencing the brain death of NATO." Referring to concerns about the drawdown of U.S. forces from Syria in October 2019 and subsequent military operations by Turkey, he lamented, "You have partners together in the same part of the world, and you have no coordination whatsoever of strategic decision-making between the United States and its NATO allies. None. You have an uncoordinated aggressive action by another NATO ally, Turkey, in an area where our interests are at stake. There has been no NATO planning, nor any coordination." In London, President Trump characterized Macron's criticism as "very, very nasty" and stressed that "NATO serves a great purpose"; Macron said he stood by his earlier criticism of the alliance.

Some of Turkey's fellow NATO members have sharply criticized Turkey's October 2019 military operations against Kurdish forces in northern Syria as well as its planned deployment of a Russian S-400 air defense system, with some policymakers calling into question Turkey's qualification for continued membership in the alliance. Turkey has been a NATO member since 1952 and has participated in numerous NATO missions, including ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Western Balkans. NATO, in turn, has invested substantially in military facilities in Turkey, including naval bases and radar sites. Since 2013, NATO members have provided Turkey with air defense support through the deployment of defensive missile systems along its southern border.

During an October 11, 2019, visit to Turkey, Secretary General Stoltenberg acknowledged Turkey's "legitimate" security concerns but urged Turkey to "act with restraint" and do everything it can to preserve the gains that have been made against the Islamic State.

Since 2012, Turkey has on three separate occasions invoked Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty to prompt high-level NATO consultations on a perceived threat from Syria to Turkey's territorial integrity or security. On February 28, 2020, the allies met and expressed full solidarity with Turkey in response to "indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and Russia in Idlib province." Secretary General Stoltenberg stressed that NATO allies were providing Turkey with air defense support along its border with Syria and aerial surveillance over Syria. NATO has deployed up to three air defense systems along the Turkish-Syrian border since early 2013 in response to a Turkish request for support following shelling by Syrian forces and the shooting down of a Turkish fighter jet in 2012. Although the air defense mission continues, some allies cast doubts on the deployment after Turkey's military incursion into northern Syria in October 2019. Italy withdrew its air defense system from Turkey in December 2019, though it said the decision was not a response to Turkey's actions; Spain continues to deploy a Patriot missile battery along Turkey's border.

Secretary General Stoltenberg has said that Turkey's acquisition of the S-400 air defense system is "not good" for NATO, but he stressed that Turkey could continue to participate in NATO's integrated air and missile defense systems if the S-400 is excluded from these systems. Some allied leaders have argued that NATO should exclude Turkey from NATO's defense systems if it deploys the S-400.

The North Atlantic Treaty does not contain provisions explicitly authorizing NATO allies to take action against another NATO member without its consent. However, the United States and other NATO members could take measures to affect the character of allied cooperation with Turkeyâfor example, by changing their contributions of equipment or personnel, or their participation in specific activities in Turkey. On October 14, 2019, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated that he would "press our other NATO allies to take collective and individual diplomatic and economic measures in response to these egregious Turkish actions."

Some European leaders, including French President Macron, have argued that uncertainty about the future U.S. role in European security should add urgency to long-standing efforts to develop coordinated European defense capabilities and policies, independent of but complementary to NATO. For two decades, the EU has sought to develop its Common Security and Defense Policy to bolster its common foreign policy, strengthen the EU's ability to respond to security crises, and enhance European military capabilities. Improving European military capabilities has been difficult, however, especially given many years of flat or declining European defense budgets. In recent years, the EU has announced several new defense initiatives, including a European Defense Fund (EDF) to support joint defense research and development activities and a new EU defense pact (known as Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO) aimed at spending defense funds more efficiently.

Secretary General Stoltenberg has expressed support for further EU defense integration and cooperation but emphasizes that these efforts should strengthen the European pillar within NATOâ22 NATO members are also members of the EUârather than replace or supplant NATO. Stoltenberg also has stressed that EU defense initiatives should be careful not to duplicate NATO capacities and should complement NATO initiatives. In addition, the Trump Administration has expressed concern that the EDF and PESCO could restrict U.S. defense companies from participating in the development of pan-European military projects. Supporters of EU defense integration highlight that PESCO's initial priority projects were identified in consultation with NATO and that several of these projects focus on enhancing military mobility across Europe, a key NATO priority.

Congress was instrumental in creating NATO in 1949 and has played a critical role in shaping U.S. policy toward the alliance ever since. Although many Members of Congress have criticized specific developments within NATOâregarding burden-sharing, for exampleâCongress as a whole has consistently demonstrated strong support for active U.S. leadership of and support for NATO.

Congressional support for NATO traditionally has buttressed broader U.S. policy toward the alliance. During the Trump Administration, however, demonstrations of congressional support for NATO have at times been viewed primarily as an effort to reassure allies about the U.S. commitment to NATO after President Trump's criticisms of the alliance. For example, during the Trump Administration, both chambers of Congress have passed legislation expressly reaffirming U.S. support for NATO at times when some allies have questioned the President's commitment. Some analysts portrayed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's joint invitation to Secretary General Stoltenberg to address a joint session of Congress on April 3, 2019, in commemoration of NATO's 70 th anniversary as an additional demonstration of NATO's importance to Congress.

Although Congress has expressed consistent support for NATO and its cornerstone Article 5 mutual defense commitment, congressional hearings on NATO in the 115 th and 116 th Congresses have reflected disagreement regarding President Trump's impact on the alliance. Some in Congress argue that President Trump's criticism of allied defense spending levels has spurred recent defense spending increases by NATO members that were not forthcoming under prior Administrations, despite long-standing U.S. concern.

Other Members of Congress counter that President Trump's admonition of U.S. allies and his questioning of NATO's utility have damaged essential relationships and undermined NATO's credibility and cohesion. They contend that doubts about the U.S. commitment to the alliance could embolden adversaries, including Russia, and ultimately weaken other allies' commitment to NATO. Critics also have lamented the Administration's reported lack of coordination with its allies on policies that have significant security ramifications for Europe, such as countering the Islamic State in Syria.

Despite disagreement over President Trump's impact on the alliance, most Members of Congress continue to express support for robust U.S. leadership of NATO, in particular to address potential threats posed by Russia. Many Members have called for enhanced NATO and U.S. military responses to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and others have advocated stronger European contributions to collective defense measures in Europe. Increasingly, some Members of Congress have questioned whether NATO should take formal action against an ally, such as Turkey, which pursues foreign and defense policies that they believe could threaten alliance security.

In light of these considerations, Members of Congress could focus on several key questions regarding NATO's future, including the following:

addressing the strategic value of NATO to the United States and the United States' leadership role within NATO; examining whether the alliance should adopt a new strategic concept that better reflects views of the security threat posed by Russia and new and emerging threats in the cyber and hybrid warfare domains (NATO's current strategic concept was adopted in 2010); examining NATO's capacity and willingness to address other security threats to the Euro-Atlantic region, including from the MENA region, posed by challenges such as terrorism and migration; examining the possible consequences of member states' failure to meet agreed defense spending targets; assessing U.S. force posture in Europe and the willingness of European allies to contribute to NATO deterrence efforts and U.S. defense initiatives in Europe, such as the ballistic missile defense program and EDI; examining options to sanction allies that act in ways that jeopardize allied security; revisiting the allies' commitment to NATO's stated "open door" policy on enlargement, especially with respect to the membership aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine; and developing a NATO strategy toward China, particularly given U.S. and other allies' concerns about the security ramifications of increased Chinese investment in Europe.