Press Briefing on START  Nuclear Treaty
Articles Blog

Press Briefing on START Nuclear Treaty

November 26, 2019


The President:
Good morning, everybody. The Press:
Good morning. The President:
I just concluded a
productive phone call with President Medvedev. And I’m pleased to announce
that after a year of intense negotiations, the United States
and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control
agreement in nearly two decades. Since taking office, one of my
highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by
nuclear weapons to the American people. And that’s why, last
April in Prague, I stated America’s intention to
pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,
a goal that’s been embraced by Presidents like John F.
Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. While this aspiration will not
be reached in the near future, I put forward a comprehensive
agenda to pursue it — to stop the spread
of these weapons; to secure vulnerable nuclear materials from terrorists; and to reduce nuclear arsenals. A fundamental part of that
effort was the negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty with Russia. Furthermore, since
I took office, I’ve been committed to a “reset”
of our relationship with Russia. When the United States
and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the
mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and
prosperity of the wider world. We’ve so far already worked
together on Afghanistan. We’ve coordinated our economic
efforts through the G20. We are working together to
pressure Iran to meet its international obligations. And today, we have reached
agreement on one of my administration’s top national
security priorities — a pivotal new arms
control agreement. In many ways, nuclear weapons
represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most
troubling threats of our time. Today, we’ve taken
another step forward by — in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future
for our children. We’ve turned words into action. We’ve made progress that
is clear and concrete. And we’ve demonstrated the
importance of American leadership — and
American partnership — on behalf of our own
security, and the world’s. Broadly speaking, the new START
treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts — by about a third —
the nuclear weapons that the United States and
Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces
missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and
effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility
that we need to protect and advance our national security,
and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the
security of our allies. With this agreement, the
United States and Russia — the two largest nuclear
powers in the world — also send a clear signal
that we intend to lead. By upholding our own
commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we
strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread
of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations
meet their own responsibilities. I’m pleased that almost one year
to the day after my last trip to Prague, the Czech Republic —
a close friend and ally of the United States — has agreed to
host President Medvedev and me on April 8th, as we sign
this historic treaty. The following week, I look
forward to hosting leaders from over 40 nations
here in Washington, as we convene a summit to
address how we can secure vulnerable nuclear materials so
that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. And later this spring, the world
will come together in New York to discuss how we can
build on this progress, and continue to strengthen the
global non-proliferation regime. Through all these efforts,
cooperation between the United States and Russia
will be essential. I want to thank President
Medvedev for his personal and sustained leadership as we
worked through this agreement. We’ve had the opportunity to
meet many times over the last year, and we both agree that we
can serve the interests of our people through
close cooperation. I also want to thank my
national security team, who did so much work to
make this day possible. That includes the leaders
with me here today — Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen. And it includes a tireless
negotiating team. It took patience. It took perseverance. But we never gave up. And as a result, the United
States will be more secure, and the American
people will be safer. Finally, I look forward to
continuing to work closely with Congress in the months ahead. There is a long tradition of
bipartisan leadership on arms control. Presidents of both parties have
recognized the necessity of securing and reducing
these weapons. Statesmen like George Shultz,
Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Perry have been
outspoken in their support of more assertive action. Earlier this week, I met with
my friends John Kerry and Dick Lugar to discuss this treaty,
and throughout the morning, my administration will be
consulting senators — my administration will be
consulting senators from both parties as we prepare for
what I hope will be a strong, bipartisan support to
ratify the new START treaty. With that, I’m going to leave
you in the able hands of my Secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton, as well as Secretary of Defense
Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. So I want to thank all of
you for your attention. Hillary. Secretary Clinton:
Well, thank you all very much. This is a good day for
America and our security. And as President
Obama just reiterated, it is one of the highest
priorities of the Obama administration to pursue an
agenda to reduce the threat posed by the deadliest weapons
the world has ever known. President Obama set that forth
in his speech at Prague last year. And today, he and President
Medvedev reached an agreement to make significant and verifiable
reductions in our nuclear arsenals. Long after the Cold War’s end,
the United States and Russia still possess more than 90% of
the world’s nuclear weapons. We do not need such large
arsenals to protect our nation and our allies against the two
greatest dangers we face today: nuclear proliferation
and terrorism. This treaty represents a
significant step forward in our cooperation with Russia. We were committed from the
beginning to reset the U.S.-Russia relationship,
because we saw it as essential to making progress on
our top priorities — from counterterrorism,
to nuclear security and non-proliferation. Now, we will continue to have
disagreements with our Russian friends. But this treaty is an example of
deep and substantive cooperation on a matter of vital importance. And more broadly, it
shows that patient, principled diplomacy can advance
our national interests by producing real results, in this
case results that are good for us, good for Russia, and
good for global security and stability. The treaty also
shows the world — particularly states like
Iran and North Korea — that one of our top priorities
is to strengthen the global non-proliferation regime and
keep nuclear materials out of the wrong hands. The new START treaty
demonstrates our commitment to making progress toward
disarmament under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,
the so-called NPT. So as we uphold our commitments
and strengthen the NPT, we can hold others
accountable to do the same. I know that Secretary Gates and
Admiral Mullen will say more about the details of the treaty,
but I want to make clear that we have adhered to the Russian
proverb that President Reagan frequently employed,
“trust, but verify.” Verification provides the
transparency and builds the trust needed to reduce the
chance for misunderstandings and miscalculations. President Obama insisted on a
whole of government effort to reach this result, and that’s
exactly what this was. He and President Medvedev met
several times and spoke often by phone. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen,
General Jones worked closely with their Russian counterparts. Foreign Minister Lavrov
and I met in person, most recently last
week in Moscow, and we spoke on the phone
too many times to count. Assistant Secretary Rose
Gottemoeller worked tirelessly in Geneva for many months
as our chief negotiator. Under Secretary Ellen
Tauscher, who is here with us, joined her at a crucial time to
help complete the agreement, assisted very ably by our
State Department expert team, including Jim Timbie. Teams of people at the State
Department, the White House, DOD, elsewhere worked
tirelessly to make this happen. Let me conclude by saying that I
look forward to working with my former colleagues in the Senate. They will be our partners
in this enterprise. I know President Obama
had an excellent meeting, as he reported to you, with
both Senators Kerry and Lugar. And Rose, Ellen and General
Jones and others of us have briefed members along the way. I look forward to working toward
ratification to bring this treaty into force. Now it’s my great pleasure and
honor to turn the podium over to my friend, Secretary Bob Gates. Secretary Gates:
This treaty strengthens
nuclear stability. It will reduce the number of
strategic nuclear weapons that both Russia and the United
States are permitted to deploy by a third, and maintains an
effective verification regime. America’s nuclear arsenal remains an important pillar of the U.S. defense posture, both to deter potential adversaries and to reassure more than two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear
umbrella for their security. But it is clear that we can
accomplish these goals with fewer nuclear weapons. The reductions in this treaty
will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit plans
to protect the United States and our allies by improving and
deploying missile defense systems. Much of the analysis that supported the U.S. negotiating position was provided by the Defense Department’s nuclear posture review, which
will be released shortly. As the number of weapons
declines we will have to invest more heavily in our nuclear
infrastructure in order to keep our weapons safe,
secure and effective. I look forward to working with
the Congress to make sure that Departments of Defense and
Energy have the funding necessary to properly
accomplish this mission. The subject of America’s nuclear
deterrent and this treaty carries special
personal meaning for me. My professional career began as
a junior Air Force Officer under the Strategic Air Command, and
my first assignment 43 years ago was at Whiteman Air Force Base,
then home to 150 Minuteman ICBMs. Since 1971, I have been involved
in strategic arms negotiations in different capacities at
CIA and here at the NSC. And I particularly recall the
day President Reagan signed the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Treaty, which marked the transition from
arms control to disarmament. That process accelerated with
START and reaches another important milestone
with this treaty. The journey we have taken from
being one misstep away from mutual assured destruction to
the substantial arms reductions of this new agreement is
testimony to just how much the world has changed and all of the
opportunities we still have to make our planet safer
and more secure. Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen:
Good morning, everyone. I would only like to add
that I, the Vice Chairman, and the Joint Chiefs, as well as
our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly
behind this new treaty, having had the opportunity
to provide our counsel, to make our recommendations,
and to help shape the final agreements. We greatly appreciate the trust
and confidence placed by us — placed in us by the President
and by Secretary Gates throughout this process. And we recognize the trust and
confidence this treaty helps foster in our relationship
with Russia’s military — a trust complementary to that
which the President has sought to achieve between
our two countries. Indeed, I met with my Russian
counterpart, General Makarov, no fewer than three times
during the negotiation process. And each time we met, we grew
closer not only toward our portion of the final result,
but also toward a better understanding of the common
challenges and opportunities our troops face every single day. The new START deals directly
with some of the most lethal of those common challenges — our stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons — by dramatically reducing these stockpiles. This treaty achieves a proper
balance more in keeping with today’s security environment,
reducing tensions even as it bolsters non-proliferation
efforts. It features a much
more effective, transparent verification method
that demands quicker data exchanges and notifications. It protects our ability to
develop a conventional global strike capability
should that be required. And perhaps more critically, it
allows us to deploy and maintain strategic nuclear forces — bombers, submarines, missiles; the triad which has proven itself over the decades — in ways best suited to meeting
our security commitments. In other words, through
the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires, and the
flexibility it preserves this treaty enhances our ability
to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and
defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success
as I am in its safeguards. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs:
All right, guys. We’re going to take three or
four questions here and then let these guys get back to work. Yes, sir. The Press:
Quickly for Secretary Clinton, how confident are you of early ratification in the Senate? And if I may ask,
Secretary Gates, you mentioned no limits
on missile defense. Do you foresee, in the future,
engaging with Russia more broadly in any kind of limitations on U.S. missile defense? Secretary Clinton:
Well, Bob, let me say that we are focused on ratification. We’re working hard. We’re going to engage deeply and
broadly with all of the members of the Senate. And we’re also informing
members of the House as well. I’m not going to
set any timetables, but we’re confident that we’ll
be able to make the case for ratification. In fact, I think if you look at
the last three major nuclear arms treaties, the SORT Treaty
of 2003, 95-0; START I Treaty, 1992, 93-6; the INF
Treaty, 1988, 93-5. So I think when it comes to
the goals of this treaty, and as both Bob and Mike
outlined the great balance that it strikes — there should be very broad bipartisan support. Secretary Gates:
I would say that we will continue to try and engage the Russians as partners
in this process. One of the technical benefits
of the phased adaptive approach that the President announced
last year is that it actually makes it easier to connect the
Russian radars and capabilities to those in Europe. So we think that there’s still
broad opportunity to not only engage the Russians, but
hopefully make them a participant in a European-wide
defense capability. Mr. Gibbs:
Jeff. The Press:
Thank you. For Secretary
Clinton, first of all, do
you believe these reductions are enough? And, second, could you expand
a little bit more on what this means for the U.S.-Russia
relationship? Is the reset complete? Secretary Clinton:
Well, Jeff, I think
that this was, in and of itself a major
achievement in our relationship. And equally importantly, it
builds to that foundation of trust and confidence that we are
establishing between the United States and Russia. This is a very
complex relationship, and it’s one that we have given
a great deal of attention to from the President all the way
through the national security team, because we believe that
there are so many other areas of mutual cooperation
that we can pursue. Bob mentioned one: We continue
to look for ways to engage with Russia on missile defense in a
way that is mutually beneficial and protective of our country’s
security against these new threats we face in the world. But our relationship coming out
of the bi-national commission that President Obama and
President Medvedev announced last summer has
covered so much ground. And we’d be glad to give you all
an in-depth briefing on that because I think it demonstrates
that we’re not just talking about the big ticket items — like START, like Iran sanctions, like European security,
like missile defense — we’re back in the business
of trying to create more people-to-people contacts
and more business investment opportunities. So we are very committed and
we’re going to continue to work together on it. The Press:
One for the Russian press? Mr. Gibbs:
Yes. The Press:
Thank you. And thanks for doing this and
congratulations on your success. (laughter) I wanted to ask, you are facing
a difficult task of convincing the U.S. Congress to
ratify the treaty. And the Russians will
face the same task. So I assume the process was
bilateral, mutually beneficial. Please tell me how the Russian
interests were taken into account in the negotiations
and final documents. Secretary Clinton:
Well, obviously, the Russian leadership will be in the best position to speak to the Russian
interests and how those were met. But what we both believed as
we went through this difficult negotiation was that cutting our
arsenals by 30% was in the best interest of both
of our countries, increasing more confidence
between us with respect to our nuclear programs. The kind of decisions that the
Russian leadership authorized to be made in this negotiation
are clearly, in their view, in Russia’s security interests. And you’re right, just as we
have to go to our Congress, President Medvedev
has to go to the Duma. And I think President Obama has
said that he would send Rahm Emanuel to Moscow — (laughter) — and we all immediately endorsed that offer. (laughter) So if it — you know, if President Medvedev wants to take us up on it, we’re ready. (laughter) The Press:
Madam Secretary, congratulations. Obviously a couple of deadlines
were missed on the way to today’s announcement. What were the sticking points
and how were they ultimately resolved? And then what’s your message
to Europeans who are still concerned about the nuclear
missiles aimed at them from Russia? Secretary Clinton:
You know, Jake, in any complex negotiation there are going to be points along the way where
negotiators have to go back to their capitals; where the
negotiators need to delegate in-depth conversations — you heard Mike Mullen say what he had to do with his counterpart, Bob, I had to talk to my counterpart, Sergey
Lavrov, many times, because the Presidents’ — President Obama and President Medvedev’s directions were
very clear: We want to do this, and we want to get it
done in a timely manner. But it took a lot of work. Just a few weeks ago I
dispatched Under Secretary Tauscher to Geneva because we
needed to make it absolutely clear that this was a priority
at the highest levels of our government. The Russians responded
to that very positively. And we began to just work
out the last details. In addition, though, it’s
important to note that we made a decision that we wanted not just
to have the treaty agreed to; we wanted the
protocols agreed to. Sometimes treaties in the past
have been submitted while the work on the protocols
still goes on. But we thought it was important
that we really went through all the technical work in the
protocols so that when we went to our Senate or when the
Russian government went to the Duma, it wasn’t just, okay,
so what’s going to be in the protocols; it was, okay,
we can look at the treaty, we can look at the protocols. So that was also some of the
time that had to be taken in order to really get to the point
where we both felt like we had the package necessary to go
to our legislative bodies. The Press:
And the message
to the Europeans? I’m sorry. Secretary Clinton:
Well, we have consistently conveyed to our European friends and allies America’s absolute
commitment to our NATO partners and to their defense. The phased adaptive approach
that the President concluded was the best way forward on missile
defense we think actually makes Europe safer from what are the
real threats that are out there. There is still work to be done
in the NATO-Russia Council to build confidence in our Central
and Eastern European partners with Russia. But everybody is aware that
that is something that is still ongoing. One of the reasons why it’s so
significant that the Presidents will meet in Prague is because
we want to send exactly that signal, that this is good for
Europe as well as for the United States and Russia. The Press:
Thank you, Madam Secretary. I think the average American,
when they hear talk of strategic arms reductions,
their eyes glaze over. The two things they really worry
about are loose nukes getting in the hands of terrorists,
which you touched on, and nations like Iran
getting nuclear weapons. Could you explain how this
treaty paves the way for progress on those two issues? Secretary Clinton:
Well, Chip, you know, as the President said in his remarks, we have a vision,
a long-term vision, of moving toward a world
without nuclear weapons. We are absolutely realistic
about how long that will take to convince everyone that this
is in the world’s interest. But the steps we are taking add
up to something that makes a very clear statement of intent. So the START treaty,
it says to our country, the Cold War really is behind
us and these massive nuclear arsenals that both of our countries maintained as part of deterrence no longer have to be so big; we can begin to cut that. That’s not only in our
security interests, but it also is a commitment by
the United States and Russia toward non-proliferation and
toward the eventual goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The nuclear security summit that
the President will host in two weeks — largest gathering of international leaders probably since the end of World War
II in the United States — devoted to the idea of how do we
keep nuclear materials out of the hands of rogue
regimes and of terrorists. We come with more credibility,
Russia comes with more credibility, having
negotiated this treaty. Then the Non-Proliferation
Treaty in May takes it one step further, about how do we bring
the non-proliferation regime into the 21st century, when
we know, unfortunately, that terrorist groups are
seeking nuclear weapons and states that are not — they don’t have the confidence of the international community
in their ambitions, like Iran and North Korea, are also pursuing nuclear weapons. So you have to look at this
as part of our whole approach toward non-proliferation. The Press:
Did Iran come up in
the conversation today? Mr. Gibbs:
Let me just — it was a fairly brief conversation finalizing the treaty. President Medvedev mentioned to
President Obama that he wanted to speak with him when they met
next in the Czech Republic. Savannah. The Press:
You mentioned the bipartisan overwhelming majority these treaties have passed
with in the past. Is there anything that concerns
you about this particular political environment that you
won’t be able to get those 67 votes? You can opine on health
care while you’re at it, since we haven’t
had an opportunity. (laughter) And for Secretary Gates, is the
Pentagon uncomfortable at all about the President’s
go-to-zero campaign, considering we do depend on
nuclear weapons for our national security? Thanks. Secretary Clinton:
Well, first, I think that national security has always produced large bipartisan
majorities and I see no reason why this should
be any different. We’ve had a very dynamic
political debate in our country over health care, which was
brought to a successful conclusion this week to the
betterment of the American people going forward. But I don’t believe that this
ratification effort will be affected by anything other than
individual senators’ assessments of whether this is in the best
interest of American security. And I think that, as you heard
from Bob and Mike and you will hear from many other experts
in the administration over the weeks ahead as we testify and
make the case to the press and the public for this treaty, we
are absolutely united in our belief that this is
in America’s interest. It’s in America’s interest in
the particulars of this treaty and it’s in America’s interest
because it puts us in a very strong leadership position to
make the case about an Iran, about a North Korea, about
other countries doing more to safeguard nuclear materials. So I believe that a vast
majority of the Senate at the end of the day will see that
this is in America’s interest and it goes way beyond politics. Secretary Gates:
Let me first say a word
about ratification from my perspective. There has been a very intense
continuing consultation on the Hill as the negotiations
have proceeded. Two of the areas that have
been of concern in the Senate, among senators, are, are we
protecting our ability to go forward with missile defense
and are we going to make the investment in our nuclear
infrastructure so that the stockpile will remain
reliable and safe. We have addressed both of those. Missile defense is not
constrained by this treaty. And we have in our budget, the
President’s budget that went to the Hill for FY ’11, almost $5
billion for investment in the nuclear infrastructure and
maintaining the stockpile. So I think we have addressed the
concerns that there may have been on the Hill and so I echo
the sentiments of Secretary Clinton, that I think the
prospects are quite good. In terms of going to nuclear
— to zero nuclear weapons, the President has been very realistic in terms of — you know, when he originally
discussed this — perhaps not in his lifetime. And we realize that other
countries have substantial numbers of nuclear weapons;
others are attempting to develop them. So we will do this
in a realistic way. But what this treaty does, and
some of the other steps — trying to get control
of fissile material, the Non-Proliferation
Treaty and so on — are concrete steps to
move in that direction. But I don’t think anybody
expects us to come anywhere close to zero nuclear
weapons anytime soon. The Press:
Madam Secretary, to what degree in the preamble will missile defense be addressed? And did the Russians
in any way, shape, or form insist upon some kind
of linkage on future missile defense plans with
the United States? And is there any concern
that you have about Russian dissatisfaction with the
Bulgaria-Romania component that they believe was not adequately
conveyed to them before it was released in those two countries? Secretary Clinton:
Well, Major, if I
could — Robert, could I ask Under Secretary Tauscher to address this? Mr. Gibbs:
Sure. Secretary Clinton:
Just fresh from Geneva. Under Secretary Tauscher:
Thank you, Madam Secretary. President Obama and President
Medvedev met in July and discussed and had an agreement
that this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty,
and that there is an inter-relationship between
strategic offensive and defensive. But that is the discussion — where the discussion ended. So I think when you see the
treaty and the protocol, there are no constraints
on missile defense. When it comes to Romania, the
phased adaptive approach is in phases, as you can see — 2011, 2015, and 2018 deployments. And we have gone to extensive
lengths to brief the Russians. Frankly, the phased adaptive
approach has been up on the Web. The Ballistic Missile Defense
Review has been up on the Web for weeks and months. So we’ve gone through extensive
briefings with the Russians. We don’t pre-clear any kind
of conversations we have with allies and friends when
we do things with them — with anyone, including
the Russians. But we certainly talked to
the Russians soon afterwards, and they knew about the Romanian
invitation for the 2015 SM-3 deployment. Mr. Gibbs:
Roger, do you have one? Did you have one? The Press:
Well, yes, I’d like to follow up with the Secretary of State on Iran — you’ve touched
on a little bit — and with that, Russia’s
cooperation now. What does that portend going
ahead with Iran and the sanctions and
getting them onboard? Secretary Clinton:
We’ve had very constructive talks with all of our partners, and in-depth consultations
with the Russians — most recently last Thursday and
Friday when I was in Moscow. We are working on language. The Russians are involved in — being consulted on that drafting process. So we are pursuing the plan
that we set forth from the very beginning of this
administration — a two-track process where the
first track was engagement, which the President has
fulfilled in every way as he has reached out to the Iranians; and
the other track of pressure in the event that the Iranians
would not engage or refuse to comply with their
international obligations. The recent IAEA report that
Director General Amano put out, summarizing many of the
questions that raise concerns about Iran’s behavior was I
think widely viewed as an authoritative source — not coming from the United States — that summarized why the
international community needs to move on this second track. So I believe that you’ll see
increasing activity in the very near future as we work to bring
to fruition a resolution that can muster the votes that are
necessary in the Security Council. The Press:
And Medvedev was going to
talk with the President in Prague on this? Secretary Clinton:
Well, President Medvedev and President Obama have talked about this continuously. The Press:
He’s going to talk to
the President in Prague? Secretary Clinton:
Well, I think as
Robert Gibbs said, when they are together
they talk about this. Mr. Gibbs:
We’ll take one more
from Ms. Thomas. The Press:
In view of the pressure on Iran, do you know of any country in the Middle East that
has nuclear weapons? Secretary Clinton:
Helen, I’ve missed you. (laughter) The Press:
Thank you. (laughter) We both got honorary degrees. Secretary Clinton:
We did. We were — Helen and I were out on the new Yankee Stadium field for the NYU commencement last — The Press:
Don’t step on the grass. (laughter) Secretary Clinton:
Yes, we didn’t step on the grass, we were very careful. But, you know, she
was, as always, in the center of activity. You know, Helen, one of our
goals is to try to move, as we have said, the world
toward a recognition that nuclear weapons
should be phased out. So from our perspective, that
is our goal in fulfilling the President’s vision. It is what we are doing with
the nuclear security summit, where a number of countries from
the region of the Middle East will be present. It’s what we’re doing with
the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in June. And it remains one of
our highest priorities. So I’m going to reaffirm our
commitment to convincing countries that the path
of non-proliferation, of lowering the temperature when
it comes to nuclear weapons — which we are doing
with this treaty — is the path they want to be on. The Press:
Verification is such an important part of this whole process. And for the American people,
when they hear you talking about the new treaty, how can you
assure them or what would you say to them about your level of
confidence in the verification process that says that everyone
will be working in good faith here? Secretary Gates? Secretary Gates:
Sure. The verification measures for
this treaty have been designed to monitor compliance with the
provisions of this treaty. So, for example,
because their — our throw-weight of missiles
was not an issue, for example, telemetry is not nearly as
important for this treaty as it has been in the past. In fact, we don’t need telemetry
to monitor compliance with this treaty. Nonetheless, there still is a
bilateral agreement to exchange telemetry information on up to
five missile launches a year. I think that when the testimony
of the intelligence community comes on the Hill, that the DNI
and the experts will say that they are comfortable that the
provisions of this treaty for verification are adequate
for them to monitor Russian compliance, and vice versa. Mr. Gibbs:
Thanks, guys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *