
But that doesn't mean they will trade five stone-cold Taliban killers for us.
On the record
Quotes from current and former United States senators.
Current senators
















WI-D
WY-R
CO-D
TN-R
CT-D
MO-R
NJ-D
AR-R
IN-R
AL-R
OH-D
NC-R
NC-R
WA-D
WV-R
MD-D
DE-D
PA-D
LA-R
ME-R
DE-D
TX-R
NV-D
AR-R
ND-R
ID-R
TX-R
MT-R
IL-D
IL-D
IA-R
PA-D
NE-R
NY-D
SC-R
IA-R
TN-R
NH-D
MO-R
NM-D
CO-D
HI-D
ND-R
MS-R
WI-R
VA-D
AZ-D
LA-R
ME-I
MN-D
OK-R
UT-R
NM-D
WY-R
WV-D
MA-D
KS-R
KY-R
OR-D
KS-R
OK-R
AK-R
CT-D
WA-D
GA-D
CA-D
KY-R
MI-D
OH-R
RI-D
ID-R
UT-R
NV-D
SD-R
FL-R

VT-I
NE-R
HI-D
MO-R
NY-D
FL-R
SC-R
NH-D
AZ-I
MN-D
MI-D
AK-R
MT-D
SD-R
NC-R
FL-R
AL-R
OH-R
MD-D
VA-D
GA-D
MA-D
RI-D
MS-R
OR-D
IN-RFormer senators

But that doesn't mean they will trade five stone-cold Taliban killers for us.

I believe there is a strong case that it would violate the Geneva Conventions to have soldiers operating without insignia.

I opposed it then, and I would oppose it now. We didn't leave Bowe Bergdahl behind.

When this transfer happened, Congress was not notified as required by the law.

The United States goal should be to convince Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty in a verifiable manner.

If Russia refuses to return to compliance, the United States should prevent Russia from achieving a military advantage from its violation.

How do you expect Iran will use that signing bonus?

Does the United States have the military capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program?

Given that Russia... is currently in ongoing violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, do you believe the United States should consider withdrawing from that treaty?

I find that proposal somewhat underwhelming, although a step in the right direction.

So you believe that at least part of that money can go to terrorist organizations they support like Hezbollah.

I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that were killed by Iranian activities, and the number has been recently reported as about 500.

General Dunford, the nominee to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Russia an existential threat.

the true test for any capability is user adoption, so why would you expect the Army to force an inferior, failing, over-priced program on the warfighter?

Shouldn't we procure programs like Palantir's that exceed the performance and expectations of an internal build like DCGS-A?

I believe that, in aggregate, we would be better with a renewed successor agreement than without it.

I hope that we provide you and all the sailors that you represent the adequate support you need, both to modernize our fleet and to continue to be a forward-deployed force to project American power.