Russ Feingold

I am glad the Senate is finally considering the critically important issue of financial regulatory reform. Few things are as important as ensuring we never again suffer the kind of meltdown of the financial markets that shoved our economy…

Moreover, the Afghan Government's rampant corruption and the disaffection among the population in the South are not going to be fixed by the arrival of an additional 30,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

I question how well we can 'clear' areas when Taliban fighters meld into local populous and 'hold' them in a sustainable manner when regular police forces are perceived to be either corrupt or unreliable.

It's too early to judge the long-term effects of the offensive in Marjah but already there are reports that the Taliban are once again asserting their presence there.

So obviously I think we have to ask whether a massive open-ended military presence that has already increased United States and Afghan civilian casualties and cost tens of billions of dollars makes sense.

I am not convinced that that's the case.

I'm concerned, as others are, that President Karzai is not serious about working to address the warlordism that has alienated the population in the south.

today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for…

To adequately deal with North Korea's and Iran's nuclear aspirations, we need full cooperation of other nations, particularly Russia and China.

To me this underscores what I have long believed, that to best secure our Nation we must move beyond a cold-war mindset and focus on the threat that terrorists could gain access to nuclear weapons or materiels.

The treaty would reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal without constraining our ability to defend our Nation, while fostering the international cooperation needed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materiels.

A single weapon would have a devastating impact.

This treaty makes significant changes to the verification regime that was in place for nearly two decades under the original START Treaty.

At the same time, we must ensure that the treaty is verifiable and does not compromise our ability to monitor nuclear weapons and materiels in Russia.

I would like to use this hearing to get some clarity on what is really needed for us to maintain a credible deterrent.

Its ratification would also offer proof to the international community of the commitment of the United States to fulfilling our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So, to use your language, it preserves the balance that we had before.

Secretary Gates testified that it is not our policy to develop missile defenses to counter Russia's deterrent, because this would be cost-prohibitive and deeply destabilizing.

This treaty stands to reduce the size of our arsenal and the Russian arsenal, making the world a safer place without constraining the ability to defend our Nation.

Should we be concerned about the kind of message we'd send to other nations, for example Iran, about the United States-Russian ability to work together on nonproliferation concerns if we failed to ratify a treaty that brings mutual…

There's been some confusion, during the previous hearings on this treaty, about the relative importance of reducing the Russian and United States strategic arsenals.

Some of my colleagues on this committee who oppose this treaty do not seem to have taken this call for action to heart.

There has been a lot of discussion about the ways in which ratifying this treaty will enhance our national security.

The reason we have to maintain this large inventory is because we no longer have the ability to produce nuclear weapons in this country.

I'm concerned that calls for maintaining a large arsenal are based on a misunderstanding of the potential impact of any use of nuclear weapons.