On the recordMay 16, 2002
I say to my good friend, and then I hope our good colleague from Indiana will join, I can see that day. It will be beautifully embossed, a document on every desk. Do you think the Senate in that period of time, in that debate, will turn down one of those countries? That is the flaw in this process which eventually I will point out in my direct statement. We are going to be handed a fait accompli. We will not have had the opportunity, unless your committee or mine--and I shall press in my committee--have some advance hearings on the likely nominee countries and using the criteria in the Secretary of State's letter 'ready and able to contribute to security.' That is what we should be doing, not waiting until that resolution comes up. That is an obligation. We have so much invested in NATO. It is a treaty that has worked beyond expectation. I remember on the 50th anniversary engaging in that marvelous debate we had in the Senate, extolling the virtues of this treaty. What I am trying to do is to preserve it so it remains strong and any nation that comes in is able, willing, and ready to pick up its share of the load and carry it and not be dependent, as we saw in Kosovo, upon the good old USA, its service persons, and its taxpayers. Some Members around here with gray hair remember things. Do you remember the Libya operation? Did we get overflights of NATO countries in that operation? Go back and check it, Senator. Go back and check.
Source
govinfo.gov




