59–010

Calendar No. 74

110TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 110–34

NATO FREEDOM CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2007

MARCH 9, 2007.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 494]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having under consideration

a bill to endorse further enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) and to facilitate the timely admission of new

members to NATO, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1

II. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 2

III. Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 2

IV. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 3

V. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 3

I. PURPOSE

The NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 reaffirms United

States support for continued enlargement of NATO to democracies

that are able and willing to meet the responsibilities of membership. In particular, the legislation calls for the timely admission of

Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia (FYROM), and Ukraine to

NATO and authorizes security assistance for these countries in Fiscal Year 2008. Each of these countries has clearly stated its desire

to join NATO and is working hard to meet the specified requirements for membership.

Eventual NATO membership for these five countries would be a

success for Europe, NATO, and the United States by continuing to

extend the zone of peace and security. Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia (FYROM) have been making progress on reforms through

their participation in the NATO Membership Action Plan since

2002. Unfortunately, Georgia and Ukraine have not yet been grantVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:37 Mar 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 S494.TXT sfrela2 PsN: sfrela2
2

ed a Membership Action Plan but nevertheless have made remarkable progress. This legislation will provide important incentives

and assistance to the countries to continue the implementation of

democratic, defense, and economic reforms.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been evolving to meet

the new security needs of the 21st century. In this era, the threats

to NATO members are transnational and far from its geographic

borders. There is strong support among members for NATO’s operation in Afghanistan, and for its training mission in Iraq. NATO’s

viability as an effective defense and security alliance depends on

flexible, creative leadership, as well as the willingness of members

to improve capabilities and address common threats.

If NATO is to continue to be the preeminent security Alliance

and serve the defense interests of its membership, it must continue

to evolve and that evolution must include enlargement. Potential

NATO membership motivates emerging democracies to make important advances in areas such as the rule of law and civil society.

A closer relationship with NATO will promote these values and

contribute to our mutual security. Georgia is a young democracy

that has made tremendous progress since the ‘‘Rose Revolution.’’ It

is situated in a critical geo-strategic location and his host to a large

portion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline that carries important

energy resources to the West from Azerbaijan and, in the future,

Kazakhstan. Georgia is resisting pressure from breakaway republics backed by Moscow. In the past, border disputes have been identified as reasons a country may not be invited to join NATO. But

in this case, Russia’s actions, not Georgia’s, are frustrating Tbilisi’s

NATO aspirations.

Three years ago, the United States Senate unanimously voted to

invite seven countries to join NATO. Today, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are making significant contributions to NATO and are among our closest allies in

the global war on terrorism. It is time again for the United States

to take the lead in urging its allies to bring in new members, and

to offer timely admission of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia

(FYROM), and Ukraine to NATO.

II. COMMITTEE ACTION

On February 6, 2007, Senator Lugar introduced S. 494, the

NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007. At a business meeting

on March 7, 2007, by a voice vote, the committee ordered the bill

reported favorably.

III. COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 11(a) of the Standing Rules

of the Senate, the following cost estimate has been provided by the

Congressional Budget Office.

3

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

March 9, 2007

S. 494

NATO FREEDOM CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 2007

AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN

RELATIONS ON MARCH 6, 2007

S. 494 would endorse the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization to include the Republic of Albania, the Republic of

Croatia, Georgia, the Republic of Macedonia, and Ukraine. The bill

also would authorize the appropriation in 2008 of such sums as

may be necessary to provide military assistance to those countries.

Based on information from the Department of State in the documents that support its appropriation request for 2008, CBO estimates that about $30 million would be sufficient to meet the authorized purposes. Based on historical spending patterns, CBO estimates that outlays would total $12 million in 2008 and $30 million

over the 2008–2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending

or receipts.

S. 494 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not

affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

On March 5, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 987,

the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, as ordered reported

by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 15, 2007.

The two bills are similar and the estimated costs for both bills are

the same.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sam Papenfuss. This

estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director

for Budget Analysis.

IV. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 11(b) of the Standing Rules

of the Senate, the committee has determined that there is no regulatory impact as a result of this legislation.

V. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the committee has determined that there are

no changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported.

Æ