We must quicken the pace and expand the scope of what we seek to accomplish.

The basic threat--and it's a real threat--is the same: weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who are crazy enough to use them.

It seems to me that, in our own legislative way, that we have to authorize our administration, at least the President of the United States to be able to go places that are very difficult on behalf of American people.

The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them, is at the heart of the worst threats to United States security today.

So this is a very, very serious issue, in my judgment, and one not easily handled in the normal ways that we deal with legislation here.

But that's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of enduring chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological attacks on our homeland or on our forces overseas.

The Senator is asking us to have the intelligence community monitor something that there is no capacity to monitor because there is no provision in the treaty requiring the monitoring. It is a little bit like saying we would like the…

I think that the new relationship between the United States and Russia can only be improved by taking nuclear weapons off alert status. By giving decision makers more time to react to disturbing information, this would lower the risk of a…

Let me echo the comments on the chairman. After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and non-proliferation objective of the United States Government. I look…

It is the same word, but the need for precision in a nonbinding declaration is a lot less important, in a judicial sense, than it is in a binding provision. That is the only point I was making.

let me begin by saying I agree with the Senator from Michigan as well as my colleague from Wisconsin in that I believe--and, as the old joke goes, I have history to prove it--that the Senate has in the treaty power in the treaty clause of…

The answer is yes. I think what the Senator is attempting to do is very important. Let me explain to the Senator my perspective, and to state the obvious--I may very well be wrong about this. But let me tell my colleague why I honestly…

I would respectfully suggest that the Hungarians would have never worked out their differences with the--or I suggest that Poland would have never really worked out its border disputes.

It is not a good thing to put out the list that we are looking into, because it creates expectations.

So the bottom line is you think that there are enough potential recipients that our assistance will have some impact that goes beyond arguably a suitable country.

Our goal is for the number of recipient nations to grow, not to diminish, correct?

I would propose for your consideration that this study and list be submitted to us in a classified forum.

Well, I wish you luck.

I mean, we have got--you know, we went through this reorganization.

After entry into force of the Moscow Treaty, getting a handle on Russian tactical nuclear weapons must be a top arms control and nonproliferation objective of the United States Government.

To do so would be a very grave mistake. We have the means to help address food needs worldwide, and considering the relative abundance in the United States, a moral obligation to do so.

Is the rest of the international donor community stepping up to the plate in terms of contributions?

What could the United States be doing that we are not now doing to help meet global food needs?

What are we stockpiling--I mean, if it is as copacetic as you guys say, why are we spending millions to stockpile food?

I'd like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on hunger around the world and the challenges of an effective U.S. response.