“I applaud President Obama for his thoughtful choices to head the Pentagon and the CIA. I’ve worked extensively with these two nominees and have always found them to be men of integrity and dedication. Both will be effective leaders in the positions to which they have been nominated.

“Senator Hagel has a deep understanding of the national security establishment, which grew out of his experiences as a decorated war veteran, a former member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, and a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Few nominees have such a combination of strategic and personal knowledge of our national defense needs.

“John Brennan’s current role as a top national security adviser to the President, and his 25 years of service at the CIA, make him a very qualified candidate for a job vital to our national security. He has been part of a team that in recent years successfully rolled back terrorist threats to America and its allies, such as the operation that eliminated Osama bin Laden.

“I trust that all Senators will give these two men a fair and constructive confirmation process. The Senate takes seriously its role in advice and consent and I expect that this body will live up to this tradition and responsibility.”

“While there are still some concerns with provisions in this bill, and particularly in its House counterpart, I commend Senators Levin and McCain for working to address many of them, and I expect the remaining issues to be resolved in conference.”

“Bravery and courage come in many forms, and on this Veterans Day we honor the men and women who have exhibited these virtues in service to our nation and to the American people. In each decade, there are those who threaten our nation’s freedoms. In times of duress and in the face of immense challenges, servicemen and women displayed strength and fortitude to preserve our democracy. Our veterans are the truest American heroes, and as we honor all them today we must also pause to remember the countless individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice and laid down their lives for their country.

“Nevada is home to one of our nation’s fastest growing veterans communities. I am proud to celebrate the nearly 300,000 veterans in the Silver State who protected our freedoms. On the beaches of Normandy, in Kabul, Baghdad, and in countless other places, Nevadans and millions of brave American soldiers went into the crosshairs of danger to fight under our nation’s flag. When these individuals enlisted, their government promised to look after them and their families. This is a solemn vow that we must always uphold.

“As more troops return from duty and transition into civilian life we must stand ready to give them every chance possible to thrive. No veteran should ever find themselves out of work, homeless, or struggling, and in recent years I have led Senate Democrats to work with Republicans to ensure veterans have access to the highest quality health services and that they have opportunities to find jobs when they return home.

“When the vitality of our veterans is strong, our communities and our nation is made stronger. I extend heartfelt thanks to veterans everywhere for their significant contributions to our country.”

“The Defense Authorization Act will give our service members the tools and resources they need to protect our nation overseas and to protect themselves as they work in some of the planet’s most dangerous regions. The measure passed by Congress today continues our efforts to ensure adequate pay, improve health care and other benefits, and provide state-of-the-art war-fighting technologies for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Our troops deserve nothing less than our full support, whether they are serving far from home over the holidays, or just coming back after long deployments in areas of conflict.

“Throughout this debate, I have raised concerns about a few provisions in this legislation, particularly those relating to the detention of terrorism suspects and a provision that would negatively impact civil rights protections in the TRICARE health care program. I have worked with my colleagues to address these concerns and some progress has been made to improve each of these provisions. Yet, concerns still remain, and I will be pressing the Administration to implement these provisions in ways that enhance our national security and minimize potential negative impacts.

“While this piece of legislation is not perfect, the Defense Authorization bill represents a major accomplishment in support of our troops. This is the 50^th consecutive year that Congress has passed legislation authorizing our nation’s defense activities, and I look forward to maintaining this strong record of support in the future.”

“Tonight the Senate voted overwhelmingly to support our men and women in uniform, including the more than 1,100 Nevadans serving overseas, as they continue to put their lives on the line. I congratulate Senators Levin and McCain for their stewardship of this bill and for working through several difficult issues.

“There is still work to be done in conference to perfect parts of this bill, including the provisions dealing with military detainees and efforts to improve key elements of TRICARE.

“But I am pleased that today an overwhelming, bipartisan majority agreed that protecting our national security is more important than partisan politics. Today we came together to support our troops, and ensured that this nation does everything in its power to keep America safe from those who would do us harm.”

In 1945, a few weeks before Germany’s surrender to Allied forces, the U.S. Army’s 92nd Infantry Division headquarters wrote a letter to its unit commanders. That letter – from the headquarters of the famous all-African American “Buffalo Soldiers” – was titled “Facts concerning 442 Infantry.”

This is what the Buffalo Soldiers wrote about the Nisei, an all-volunteer unit of Japanese Americans who had already proven their great valor in battle in the European Theatre:

“They are as thoroughly loyal as German Americans, Italian Americans, or any other American of foreign ancestry. A category, of course, into which all of us fall.”

And of course that was true. Not only were the men of the 442nd just as loyal as the most distinguished American soldiers of every other race or national background, they were also just as sharp of eye, true of aim and stout of heart.

And, in the end, the blood they shed defending American freedom on the battlefields of Europe – while fighting for the only nation they had ever called home – was just as red.

Although they were exempt from the draft, they volunteered to fight for our flag. Many of them joined despite having family living in American internment camps along with 110,000 other people of Japanese ancestry who were removed from their homes.

And 650 of them willingly gave their lives to protect the freedom for which America stands, although they were denied that freedom at home.

Nearly 4,000 more of these first-generation Americans were wounded or missing in combat. My friend, Senator Daniel Inouye, who is one of the finest men I know, fought famously with the 442nd and was grievously wounded in battle.

Bravery like Senator Inouye’s is the reason the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, including the 100th Infantry Battalion, is one of the most highly decorated units in U.S. military history.

Its soldiers earned thousands of Purple Hearts, more than 500 Silver Stars, 21 medals of honor and nine presidential unit citations. And alongside the Military Intelligence Service, which was also honored with a presidential unit citation for indispensible translation and interrogation services, the 442nd helped win the war.

It is for that brave commitment that we award them the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow.

Some say it was a desire to prove that their loyalty and dedication to this country was beyond reproach that made the men of the 442nd such formidable fighters against fascism. But really they just shared the same patriotism that blazed in the hearts of other young, American soldiers.

We owe them much gratitude for their service and pay tribute to their sacrifice.

“I commend the President for his announcement today and I fully support his decision to remove all American troops from Iraq by the end of this year. This is the right decision at the right time. The Iraqi people have demonstrated the capability to secure their own country, and it is time for us to leave. Since coming to office, the President has followed through on his commitment to wind down the war in Iraq, while continuing to achieve major gains in his strategy to decimate terrorist organizations and keep America safe.

“As we continue to focus on pressing threats like finishing off al Qaeda and the others who would do America harm, it is critical that we remember the 4,400 Americans who lost their lives, the tens of thousands more who were wounded, and all those who served in Iraq. As a nation, we have no more important duty than keeping our commitment to recognize their service, honor their memories, and support their families.”

“Today marks the end of a shameful and counterproductive policy that needlessly destroyed careers and harmed our military readiness. Thousands of qualified men and women who want to serve our country will now be able to do so without fearing their careers could end due to their sexual orientation. Our Armed Forces will be stronger because now our military commanders and our nation can be sure we will have the best and brightest service members on the job, regardless of ethnicity, creed, or sexual orientation.”

“On National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and every day, we pay tribute to the American men and women who never returned home from combat, and to those who suffered as prisoners of war. We are forever grateful to those who wear the uniforms of the United States Armed Forces, including the 2,100 Nevadans currently deployed around the world, who place themselves in harm’s way to protect our freedom. We admire the sacrifices of these Nevadans and their families, and we thank them for keeping our state and our nation safe. On this day, we promise all our service members that you are not forgotten and we will not rest until we have accounted for every missing man and woman who has defended this great nation.”

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding what is at stake with a default. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

As the clock ticks down to August 2, I want to remind everyone within the sound of my voice what is at stake in this debate.

This very moment, millions of Americans seniors worry that their next Social Security check might not come on Wednesday.

Middle-class families wonder whether their retirement accounts will be wiped out by an economic collapse brought on by a default on this nation’s debt.

And active duty military personnel – including many who are risking their lives for our great nation – worry whether they will receive their paychecks.

The Associated Press reported that Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited with troops serving in Afghanistan yesterday. And the soldiers Admiral Mullen talked to weren’t asking about military strategy or how a troop drawdown in Afghanistan would affect them.

They asked whether they would get paid if Republicans force the U.S. government to stop paying its bills.

In a region that has been wracked by violence and plagued by suicide bombers this month, they wondered how they would take care of their families if their checks stopped coming next month.

Let me read you a little bit of that Associated Press story.

“A half a world away from the Capitol Hill deadlock, the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“And the top question on their minds Saturday even as bombings rocked the city around them, was one the top U.S. military officer couldn’t answer.

“Will we get paid?”

Admiral Mullen told them he didn’t know the answer to their question, but that either way those soldiers must continue to work every day.

This is unacceptable.

In a country as rich and powerful as ours, men and women with bombs going off around them shouldn’t worry whether this country will leave them high and dry.

This afternoon, I ask those who have said they will never compromise on any terms to think about who their stubbornness will hurt.

I have spoken to the Vice President this morning. He is hopeful, as I am, that we are close to an agreement with Republican leaders.

The framework of this agreement is based on some new ideas and some old ones. After speaking to Republican Leader Mitch McConnell this morning, I would say we are both cautiously optimistic we will reach a conclusion soon.

There are a number of major issues yet to be resolved in these ongoing discussions. Each of them must be resolved before we will have a final agreement.

But we must get something done as quickly as possible, and I believe all sides are aware of the urgency.

It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives wasted all of last week on legislation they knew would never pass the Senate – and, in fact, barely passed the House with only Republican votes.

Democrats have said all along that we would never agree to a short-term arrangement that would put our economy at risk and force Congress into another debt ceiling showdown in a few weeks.

I have always said the long-term approach taken by the Senate legislation was absolutely necessary. We must give the financial markets confidence this country will not shirk its obligations now or in the future.

There are still elements of the agreement to be resolved, and Democrats are watching the process closely.

I am satisfied the compromise being discussed at the White House adopts the Senate’s long-term approach, which will give the economy the certainty it needs.

It is also crucial the agreement being crafted set on us on the path to fiscal restraint.

I believe the settlement must include thoughtful constraints on spending. The 12-member commission I conceived to recommend additional deficit reduction measures this year will be key to that effort.

Sen. McConnell and I agree Congress owns the responsibility to set this country on the path to fiscal sustainability. This commission will assure we undertake that responsibility.

When I conceived of this commission, I knew it was important that it achieve real results. And it will be essential to choose members with open minds willing to consider every option – even when those options are tough pills to swallow for both parties.

Cooperation is the only way forward. This is what Andrew Carnegie once said about the virtue of compromise:

“I shall argue that strong men… know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle.”

But perhaps President Abraham Lincoln said it best when he said this:

“Determine that the thing can and shall be done, and then we shall find the way.”

“The President’s plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a critical step in the right direction. I commend the many brave members of our Armed Forces who have served there and thank them for their sacrifice. I look forward to the day when all of our courageous fighting men and women are safely home.

“Under the President’s leadership we have made substantial progress toward achieving many of our major strategic goals in the region, including bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and significantly weakening al Qaeda’s terrorist capabilities.

“We have also helped put the Afghan government in a position to begin to take responsibility for its own security in a growing number of key areas. As we withdraw our troops, the Afghans must continue to step up and take responsibility for their own country. In the meantime, we must capitalize on the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan to finish the job and ensure al Qaeda’s long-term, strategic defeat. The President’s plan will allow us to do that, while beginning the important transfer of security and governance responsibilities to the Afghan people.”

“Those watching around the world may not be able to see on their screens the scene here in the United States Senate.

“We have all come to the floor in a way we rarely do.  We have come here this afternoon to express with one voice our endless respect and admiration for the men and women of our military and intelligence organizations.

“‘Resolution’ is an appropriate name for this legislation.  It honors the resolution to a problem that has lingered for nearly a decade – one whose weight has grown heavier each day on the shoulders of the families Osama bin Laden traumatized and the many more he terrorized.  It honors the resolve with which our bravest stared down danger.

“The world is still absorbing America’s astounding accomplishment – a mission to bring bin Laden to justice, one that began more than nine-and-a-half years ago, and was accomplished just a little more than a day and a half ago.  Nine-and-a-half years after the worst morning in our memory, we woke up yesterday morning to a world without Osama bin Laden, and with a palpable sense of justice.

“Our military and intelligence operatives are the best in the world at what they do.  As they set out to kill or capture our most valuable target, they captivated us with their skill and expertise, their patriotism and their professionalism.

“A flood of thoughts and emotions and analyses has been shared over the past 36 hours.  As I said from this desk yesterday, the end of his life is not the end of this fight.  It is a victory, but not the victory.  A lot has already been said about what bin Laden’s death means.

“So before we vote on this resolution, I want to speak only briefly about the American men and women who carried out this critical, successful mission – a mission that was historically significant and tactically stunning.

“Osama bin Laden was the most wanted and most hunted man in the world.  His was the face of our enemy and the face of evil.  There were few faces more recognizable to the American people and to citizens of the world.

“Those who carried out the Commander-in-Chief’s orders this weekend could not be more different.  The world doesn’t know their names.  We wouldn’t recognize them if we passed them on the street.  And that is exactly how they would want it.

“This is the newest proud page in the long story of the American hero – the unknown soldiers, the unsung saviors who sacrifice for our country’s flag and their countrymen’s freedom.  They don’t ask for recognition and they don’t ask questions.  They just answer their nation when it calls.

“Today the Senate stands in awe of the countless men and women who have toiled in obscurity, in the field and in every corner of the world.  Professionals who gather one small shred of evidence here, unearth one clue there, pursue another lead somewhere else.

“The men and women who, over the course of 10 long years, pieced together this most meaningful of puzzles so that a few dozen of their fellow heroes could execute an operation the world will never forget.

“These heroes confronted fear with brilliance and bravery.  They met the worst of humanity with the best of America.  The terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks did so with cowardice.  The Americans who carried out this mission did so with unfailing courage.

“No one has asked how these men and women vote or what their politics are.  And so we have come here to the floor to vote together on this resolution not as two parties – not even as 100 Senators – but as one body, representing one grateful country.”

###

TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION:

Honoring the members of the military and intelligence community who carried out the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and for other purposes.

Whereas, on May 1, 2011, United States personnel killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden during the course of a targeted strike against his secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan;

Whereas Osama bin Laden was the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, the most significant terrorism threat to the United States and the international community;

Whereas Osama bin Laden was the architect of terrorist attacks which killed nearly 3,000 civilians on September 11, 2001, the most deadly terrorist attack against our Nation, in which al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center in

New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and, due to heroic efforts by civilian passengers to disrupt the terrorists, near Shanksville, Pennsylvania;

Whereas Osama bin Laden planned or supported numerous other deadly terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, including the 1998 bombings of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, and against innocent civilians in countries around the world, including the 2004 attack on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain and the 2005 bombings of the mass transit system in London, England;

Whereas, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States, under President George W. Bush, led an international coalition into Afghanistan to dismantle al Qaeda, deny them a safe haven in Afghanistan and ungoverned areas along the Pakistani border, and bring

Osama bin Laden to justice;

Whereas President Barack Obama in 2009 committed additional forces and resources to efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan as ‘‘the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism’’;

Whereas the valiant members of the United States Armed Forces have courageously and vigorously pursued al Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan and around the world;

Whereas the anonymous, unsung heroes of the intelligence community have pursued al Qaeda and affiliates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and around the world with tremendous dedication, sacrifice, and professionalism;

Whereas the close collaboration between the Armed Forces and the intelligence community prompted the Director of National Intelligence, General James Clapper, to state, ‘‘Never have I seen a more remarkable example of focused integration, seamless collaboration, and sheer professional magnificence as was demonstrated by the Intelligence Community in the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden.’’;

Whereas, while the death of Osama bin Laden represents a significant blow to the al Qaeda organization and its affiliates and to terrorist organizations around the world, terrorism remains a critical threat to United States national security; and

Whereas President Obama said, ‘‘For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our Nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.’’: Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Senate—

(1) declares that the death of Osama bin Laden represents a measure of justice and relief for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 men and women who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, the men and women in the United States and around the world who have been killed by other al Qaeda-sponsored attacks, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community who have sacrificed their lives pursuing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda;

(2) commends the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for the tremendous commitment, perseverance, professionalism, and sacrifice they displayed in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice;

(3) commends the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the United States intelligence community for committing themselves to defeating, disrupting, and dismantling al Qaeda;

(4) commends the President for ordering the successful operations to locate and eliminate Osama bin Laden; and

(5) reaffirms its commitment to disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and affiliated organizations around the world that threaten United States national security, eliminating a safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and bringing terrorists to justice.

“Osama bin Laden is dead, killed in a targeted U.S. operation authorized by President Obama.

“This is the most significant victory in our fight against al Qaeda and terrorism, but that fight is not over. We will continue to support our troops and the American civilians who are fighting every day to protect our homeland.

“Nine-and-a-half years ago, Osama bin Laden masterminded the horrific attacks against the United States that killed nearly 3,000 people. As we remember those who were killed on that dark day in September and their families, we also reaffirm our resolve to defeat the terrorist forces that killed them and thousands of others across the globe. Because of courageous Americans in our military and intelligence community, their leader is now gone.”

“Late last night we learned the news we’d been longing to hear since the worst morning in our memory: an American operation brought Osama bin Laden to justice.

“This was an American mission – ordered by President Obama and accomplished by America’s brave and brilliant military and intelligence professionals.

“Last night’s news stunned the world – but this operation’s success should surprise no one.  America’s special forces and intelligence operatives are the best – the best trained, the best equipped, the best led.  Every day of every year, they risk their lives for our sake, for our safety.

“They are the most professional and proficient forces on the planet, and yesterday they brought down the most wanted mass murderer on Earth.

“Their success is the most significant victory yet in our fight against Al Qaeda and terrorism.  It sends a strong and unmistakable message to terrorists who threaten our country, our people and our interests.

“This success is a direct result of President Obama’s leadership, from the national-security priorities he outlined when he took office to the green light he gave our forces this weekend.

“President Obama insisted that we refocus on Afghanistan and Pakistan as the central battlefields in our fight against terrorism.  Those tremendous military, diplomatic, intelligence and economic efforts are the reason we woke up this morning in a world that is no longer home to Osama bin Laden.

“But the end of his life is not the end of this fight.  Yesterday’s operation is indeed a measure of justice.  But it is only one measure of justice.  It absolutely is a definitive victory, but it does not define absolute victory.

“America welcomes the success of our fellow citizens’ extraordinary mission.  Even as we breathe a sigh of relief, though, we are not relieved of our duty to be vigilant, to be persistent, to defeat our enemy and to make our nation stronger.

“The leader of Al Qaeda is gone, but his organization is not.  We know our enemy is widespread and motivated – and the truth is, it may be more motivated today than it was yesterday.

“Our troops continue to fight.  Our intelligence professionals continue to work.  Their families continue to sacrifice.  We continue to support all of them, and each other.

“We also pause today to once again lend a shoulder to those whose grief never ends – not with time, not with bin Laden’s demise, not ever.

“This significant measure of justice is but a small measure of comfort to those who lost loved ones at bin Laden’s direction – in America and around the world, in New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania, aboard the U.S.S. Cole, at American embassies in Africa, on trains in London and Madrid, and in so many other places.

“Bin Laden’s death does not bring back the thousands of innocent people his thugs killed, or make whole families that will forever be incomplete.

“But it is an important milestone that reminds the world America does not suffer the wicked and will not submit to evil.  Our resolve is strengthened when it is challenged, and our unity – though it, too, is often tested – is unbreakable.

“Because of the hard work of courageous Americans in our military, intelligence, diplomatic and law-enforcement communities, a long and painful chapter in our nation’s history closed yesterday.  Today we welcome a spring of new optimism and renewed patriotism.

“The chapter now behind us ended with justice.  We hope the chapter ahead of us will bring security and peace.

“While the nation and the world absorb this crucial development, the work of the Senate continues.

“Today we begin a new month and a new work period and a new opportunity to come together to create jobs.

“I hope this month will be a productive one.  There are several important and time-sensitive items on our plate.

“One, I hope to wrap up the small-business jobs bill.  This has been on the floor for far too long, and we need to resolve it so we can move on to other matters.

“Two, we will have the same debate in the Senate that the American people are having at home.  That is the question of whether we should keep giving away money to oil companies who clearly don’t need taxpayer handouts.  That will be part of a larger debate we will continue having about how best to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and invest better and smarter in clean energy.

“Three, we will vote on the House-passed budget.  A majority of the House has embraced it, a majority of the American people has rejected it, and the Senate will soon have its say, too.

“Finally, we will confirm judicial nominees, many of whom have waited too long for the Senate to act.  If the minority forces us to file cloture on these nominees in order to get to a final vote, I will file cloture.  We cannot waste any more time or play these games any longer.  The country needs these empty benches filled.

“We also have other nominations to confirm, including the Attorney General’s top deputy, Jim Cole.

“The Deputy Attorney General runs the day-to-day operations of the Department of Justice.  He also is the person who signs the critical warrants that permit our intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists.  But he can’t do that unless the Senate confirms him – so we must do that soon.

“Especially given last night’s developments, it is unthinkable that partisanship and legislative ploys are keeping a well-qualified nominee out of this important national-security role.

“A moment ago we began this remarkable new day in the Senate the same way we begin every day in session: with the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag.  Its closing words were the powerful closing words of President Obama’s address to the nation last night, and their meaning is even more profound today, the first day of this new era.

“Those words – ‘liberty and justice for all’ – represent America’s purpose.  This weekend, in the name and pursuit of liberty, heroic Americans halfway around the world secured justice – for an evil man’s victims, for the survivors of his terror, for Americans, for our allies and for the entire world.  Liberty and justice, for all.”

“I am pleased that my friend Leon Panetta will bring his long record of service, first in Congress and then in both the Clinton and Obama Administrations, to the job of Secretary of Defense. His work at the CIA has helped strengthen and rebuild trust in the agency and we all have benefited from his leadership. Director Panetta is taking the helm at a crucial time for the Pentagon, in the midst of two wars and as we close in on our July deadline to begin the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan. We need the kind of experienced leadership he can provide.

“When I met with General Petraeus recently, I expressed my appreciation for his willingness to serve in Afghanistan when the President and our country needed him. I am grateful for his three and a half decades of admirable service to this country. His command of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan during key transitional periods and his extensive experience working with the intelligence community will be invaluable at the CIA.

“I am glad that both of these distinguished leaders will continue to serve the Administration and provide continuity on our national security agenda. General Petraeus and Director Panetta will ensure smooth transitions during a critical point for American foreign policy – in the midst of two wars, with continued unrest in the Middle East and as we face ongoing threats from international terrorism.”

• On April 8, 2010, following a year of intense negotiations, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).
• The New START Treaty replaces the 1991 START Treaty which expired on 12/5/09.

New START limits the number of strategic offensive arms of the US and Russia (within seven years of the Treaty’s entry into force) to:

• 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs, and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers.
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.
• 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers.

The Senate has extensively reviewed and examined New START:

• The Senate has held over 15 hearings on the Treaty and received many classified briefings.
• The Foreign Relations Committee alone held 12 hearings and classified briefings with 21 bipartisan witnesses and received input from the Intelligence and the Armed Services Committees.
• The Obama Administration answered over 900 questions for the record.
• The Obama Administration provided two classified briefings for the full Senate.

The Treaty Received Bipartisan Support from the Foreign Relations Committee:

• By a bipartisan vote of 14-4, the Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly approved a Resolution of Ratification with 10 conditions, 3 understandings, and 13 declarations.

The Treaty is unanimously supported by US military leadership and has been strongly endorsed by bipartisan national security leaders including:

• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, Gen. James Cartwright;
• Former President George H.W. Bush;
• All living former Secretaries of State, including: Condoleezza Rice, Colin L. Powell, James A. Baker III, George P. Schultz, and Henry A. Kissinger;
• Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Schlesinger, Stephen Hadley, Sam Nunn, John Warner.

The Treaty will allow the US to resume inspections of Russia’s nuclear arsenal:

• The US has not been able to conduct on-site inspections of Russian’s nuclear arsenal since 12/09, when the original START treaty expired.

The Treaty strengthens America’s national security:

• Preserves a strong US nuclear arsenal as an effective strategic deterrent.
• Provides stability, predictability and transparency between the two largest nuclear powers.
• Strengthens critical non-proliferation efforts around the world.
• Increases US ability to work with other countries to confront the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran and North Korea.

The Lab Directors support the Administration’s plan for the US nuclear complex:

The directors of the three nuclear laboratories wrote a letter stating their support for the plan to provide $85billion over the next ten years to upgrade the nuclear weapons complex.

The New START Treaty Will Not Constrain Missile Defense.

Assertionsthat New START limits U.S. missile defense capabilities are false.  Numerous Pentagon officials and arms control experts have attested to that fact, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and Missile Defense Agency Director Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly.

Our military leaders have said that the prohibition in Article V of the Treaty preventing the conversion of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers into missile defense launchers is not relevant to either current or future U.S. missile defense plans.  Other than the 5 converted ICBM silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base that were grandfathered into the treaty, the Defense Department has no plans to convert any additional silos.  As then-U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones wrote in April, “It’s a limit in theory, but not in reality.”  It is far more cost effective to simply dig a new hole for a missile interceptor silo than convert an existing silo, and the Treaty in no way affects new construction of silos for missile defense purposes. Our military and civilian leaders have also stated that neither the language in the preamble referencing the inter-relationship between strategic offensive and defensive forces nor the Russian unilateral statement place legally binding obligations upon the U.S.[1]

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee made it absolutely clear in the resolution of ratification that the Treaty would not constrain missile defense.  Both Understanding #1 and Declarations #1 and #2 specifically address and reiterate the U.S. commitment to developing and deploying missile defenses.  The Committee’s resolution goes to great lengths to reaffirm and further clarify that the Treaty’s preamble and Russia’s unilateral statement impose no limits on our ability to develop and deploy missile defenses.  A provision similar to the preamble existed in the original START document.  Moreover, Declaration #1 underscores current U.S. policy by restating language in the 1999 Missile Defense Act mandating the implementation of a national missile defense system “as soon as technologically possible.”[2]

The Administration has made a significant down payment on enhancing our nation’s nuclear infrastructure by committing $85 billion over the next ten years to modernize our nuclear weapons complex. The “1251 Report” submitted to Congress by the Obama Administration, as required by the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, lays out a comprehensive plan to enhance our nation’s nuclear weapons infrastructure.  It calls for substantial maintenance to nuclear weapons delivery platforms; outlines a detailed plan for sustaining a safe, secure, and reliable U.S. weapons stockpile; and commits to historic growth in funding for the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.

The Administration has more than demonstrated its commitment to strengthening America’s nuclear infrastructure with dramatic budget increases for FY 2011, issuing a revised “1251 Report,” and by responding to the unorthodox request to release a draft budget for FY 2012, in which the Administration will provide an even larger increase in modernization funding.  In his FY 2011 proposal, the President requested nearly a 10% increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) over FY 2010 levels. For FY 2012, the Administration plans to increase NNSA funding by nearly 9% more than the increased FY 2011 budget.  In addition, the Administration outlined a ten-year budget for NNSA that substantially augments funding for weapons activities, as well as extensive Life Extension Programs (LEP) for the nuclear weapons stockpile.  The Administration also detailed its commitment to constructing two critical new research facilities.

The President’s commitment to invest $80 billion over the next decade will sustain and modernize our nation’s nuclear weapons complex.  Moreover, President Obama pledged an additional $4.1 billion to be injected into the U.S. nuclear infrastructure over the next five years.  These investments will transform America’s nuclear weapons complex into a modern, sustainable 21^st Century Nuclear Security Enterprise.  Such investments to the Stockpile Stewardship Program and its supporting infrastructure are critical for maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent, as well as furthering nuclear nonproliferation, preventing nuclear terrorism, strengthening our nation’s emergency response, supporting our intelligence community, and fulfilling our global obligations.

Directors of the three primary Department of Energy/NNSA laboratories involved in nuclear weapons design and development – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory – fully endorse the Administration’s commitment to ensuring that U.S. nuclear laboratories and stockpiles are state-of-the-art and sufficiently equipped.  In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Lugar on December 1, 2010, the Directors write, “[W]e are very pleased by the update to the Section 1251 Report, as it would enable the laboratories to execute our requirements for ensuring a safe, secure, reliable and effective stockpile under the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.”[3]

As an added measure to ensure these pledges are enacted, the Foreign Relations Committee’s advice and consent resolution Condition #9 underscores the nation’s commitment to building and maintaining “a robust stockpile stewardship program” and to maintaining an updated and revitalized nuclear weapons production capability.

The Treaty provides strong verification measures.

New START streamlines verification and tracking procedures using a newly created, state-of-the-art inspections system and strict reporting guidelines.  Compliance and verification measures in New START build on 20 years of verification experience and appropriately reflect technological advances made since 1991, as well as improved relations between the U.S. and Russia since the end of the Cold War.

New START’s enhanced verification measures involve a five-pronged approach comprised of: 1) invasive, on-site inspections; 2) national technical means (NTM); 3) unique identifiers placed on each weapon; 4) regular data exchange; and 5) prompt notifications of movements of weapons.

1. New START permits up to 18 short-notice on-site inspections each year to determine the accuracy of Russia’s data and to verify compliance.  New START’s inspection system is every bit as rigorous and informative as the original START regime.  The original START Treaty allowed for U.S. inspections in 70 nuclear facilities located in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus.  However, the latter three countries have since “denuclearized.”  As a result, all of the former Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons are now centralized in Russia and divided between the country’s 35 nuclear facilities.  Thus, decreasing the number of annual inspections from 28 in Start I to 18 in New START is at least effectively equivalent to those allowed under START I, since the number of facilities to visit and weapons to inspect are fewer and inspectors are allowed to gather more types of data during the inspections.
2. The U.S. is allowed access to employ national technical means (reconnaissance satellites, ground stations, and ships) to verify compliance.  Moreover, the treaty expressly prohibits tampering with the other party’s NTM.
3. Russia must assign and inform the U.S. of its unique alphanumeric identifiers designating deployed and non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear capable heavy bombers.  This information further informs and serves to verify our tracking patterns of Russian equipment throughout each system’s life cycle.
4. The treaty requires Russia to regularly provide to the U.S. aggregate data on their strategic offensive forces, including numbers, locations and technical characteristics of deployed and non-deployed strategic offensive arms.
5. New START establishes a comprehensive notification regime allowing us to track movement of Russia’s strategic forces and changes in any strategic weapons system’s status.

New START employs a robust and effective verification system predicated on decades of arms treaty verification experience.  The verification system was expressly designed to be less complicated, less costly, and more effective than the one in the original START Treaty.  This extensive verification regime is tailored to monitor the limits of the New START Treaty and enables the U.S. to quickly and accurately detect any possible Russian violations and ensure that the U.S. can rapidly and effectively respond.

[1]The Wall Street Journal, 4/20/10.

[2]Text of Senate Executive Report.

[3]Letter to Senators Kerry and Lugar from all three Department of Energy/NNSA laboratories, 12/1/10

Myth: Ratifying the New START Treaty threatens our national security.

Fact: Ratifying the New START Treaty dramatically enhances our national security in 3 specific ways: 1) New START creates stability between the two countries with over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons and  re-activates inspections that help provide transparency and predictability; 2) New START helps prevent terrorists from gaining access to nuclear capabilities; and 3) New START bolsters our non-proliferation efforts around the world and allows us to increase pressure on countries with dangerous nuclear ambitions, such as North Korea and Iran.

1. Ratifying New START enables the U.S. to have access to the Russian’s nuclear weapons complex, which provides transparency and creates stability between the two countries.  The Treaty includes robust verification and inspection requirements.  Inspections of Russian nuclear facilities have been suspended for over a year since START I expired in December 2009. Reinstating inspections of Russia’s nuclear weapons will allow us to verify that Russia is adhering to the treaty, and to gain insight to Russia’s strategic force posture.  All of these measures increase transparency between our two nations, making it far less likely that an arms race could break out, and engendering trust that will allow us to work together to confront key global challenges.
2. Preventing a nuclear terrorist attack is paramount.  New START’s inspections and verification regime will reduce the number of actively deployed weapons and help ensure that Russia’s vast and deteriorating nuclear infrastructure is safely secured. Failing to ratify New START could damage the Nunn-Lugar program’s cooperative U.S.-Russian efforts to safeguard against loose nuclear materials ending up on the black market and in the hands of terrorists and rogue states.
3. By ratifying the New START Treaty and demonstrating our commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States will pressure other countries to improve their own nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  In addition, the US will gain leverage over other countries to work with us as we continue to deal with critical nuclear threats from both North Korea and Iran.

Myth:  The New START treaty will limit our missile defense program.

Fact:  Pentagon officials and arms control experts attestthat the New START Treaty does not constrain our missile defense plans. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, Missile Defense Agency Director Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly stated,“Throughout the treaty negotiations, I frequently consulted the New START team on all potential impacts to missile defense. The New START Treaty does not constrain our plans to execute the U.S. Missile Defense program.”[1] Our military and civilian leaders have repeatedly testified that the language in the preamble referencing the inter-relationship between strategic offensive and defensive forces – which is based on previous treaties – is not legally binding, and neither is Russia’s unilateral statement.  Furthermore, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made it absolutely clear in its resolution of ratification that the treaty would not constrain missile defense.^[2]

Myth: Not enough is being done to “modernize” our nuclear infrastructure.

Fact:  The United States has a robust modernization program in place that will strengthen and sustain our nuclear arsenal. Two years ago one might have argued that not enough was being done.  But today, the Obama Administration has committed $85 billion over the next ten years to strengthening America’s nuclear weapons complex, ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.  The President asked Congress for nearly a 10 percent increase over FY 2010 levels for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in his FY 2011 budget request.  In addition, the Administration outlined a 10-year budget for the NNSA that substantially increases funding for weapons activities and Life Extension Programs (LEPs) for the nuclear weapons stockpile.  In response to requests to concerns about the commitments for certain programs, President Obama pledged an additional $4.1 billion to be injected into the U.S. nuclear infrastructure over the next five years.

These investments will transform America’s nuclear weapons complex into a modern, sustainable 21^st Century Nuclear Security Enterprise.  Directors of all three Department of Energy/NNSA laboratories fully endorse the Administration’s commitment to ensuring that U.S. nuclear laboratories and stockpiles are state-of-the-art and sufficiently equipped.  As an added measure, the Foreign Relations Committee’s advice and consent resolution Condition #9 underscores the nation’s commitment to building and maintaining “a robust stockpile stewardship program” and to maintaining an updated and revitalized nuclear weapons production capability.^[3]

Myth: Verification measures in New START are inadequate.

Fact: The New START Treaty contains a strong verification regime to ensure compliance and prevent nuclear breakout. New START streamlines verification and tracking procedures using a newly created, state-of-the-art inspections system and strict reporting guidelines. Compliance and verification measures in New START build on 20 years of verification experience and appropriately reflect technological advances made since 1991, as well as improved relations between the U.S. and Russia since the end of the Cold War.  New START’s enhanced verification measures involve a five-pronged approach comprised of: 1) 18 invasive, on-site inspections; 2) national technical means (NTM); 3) unique identifiers placed on weapons that distinguish between deployed and non-deployed equipment; 4) regular data exchange; and 5) prompt notifications of movement of weapons.  New START employs a robust and effective verification system predicated on decades of arms treaty verification experience.  The verification system was expressly designed to be less complicated, less costly, and more effective than the system established by the original START Treaty.  This extensive verification regime is tailored to monitor the limits of the New START Treaty while reducing, where reasonable, burdens on our own military; it enables the U.S. to quickly and accurately detect any possible Russian violations and ensure that the U.S. can rapidly and effectively respond.

Myth:  It would be dangerous to agree to lower levels of strategic nuclear warheads unless Russia reduces its relatively larger stockpile of nonstrategic, or tactical, nuclear arsenal.

Fact 1:  Russia’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons do not actually give Russia a meaningful military advantage. Both Russia and the U.S. maintain arsenals of nonstrategic, or tactical, weapons – shorter-range, lower-yield weapons designed for battlefield use. Russia’s retains more of these weapons than the U.S., and critics have argued Russia’s arsenal is destabilizing. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have stated publicly, “Because of their limited range and very different roles from those played by strategic nuclear forces, the vast majority of Russian tactical nuclear weapons could not directly influence the strategic nuclear balance between the United States and Russia.” General Kevin Chilton, who as Commander of U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for America’s strategic deterrence mission, has explained, “Though numerical asymmetry exists in the numbers of tactical nuclear weapons the [United States] has and we estimate Russia possesses, when considered within the context of our total capability and given force levels as structured in New START, this asymmetry is not assessed to substantially affect the strategic stability between the [United States] and Russia. Furthermore, within the regional context, the [United States] relies on multiple capabilities, including its superior conventional force capabilities, tactical nuclear capabilities, U.S. strategic nuclear capabilities, ballistic missile defenses, and allied capabilities, to support extended deterrence and power projection.” Even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when questioned by the Senate on why the 2002 Moscow Treaty did not address Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, stated for the record, “I would be perfectly comfortable having them [i.e., the Russians] have a good many more than we have, simply because of the differences in our two circumstances.”[4]

Fact 2:  The Administration has committed to addressing tactical arms reduction in the next, comprehensive round of U.S.-Russian talks. Secretary Clinton and Gates have explained for the record that “A more ambitious treaty that addressed tactical nuclear weapons would have taken much longer to complete, adding significantly to the time before a successor agreement, including verification measures, could enter into force following START’s expiration in December 2009.” As the Resolution of Ratification passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee states, the United States is committed to negotiations aimed at reductions and transparency that would cover all nuclear weapons – deployed and non-deployed, strategic and non-strategic. That is in part why Eastern European leaders see ratification of New START as so important to enhancing their security; as Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorksi wrote on November 20, our NATO Allies see “New START is a necessary stepping-stone to future negotiations with Russia about reductions in tactical nuclear arsenals, and a prerequisite for the successful revival of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE).”[5]

Myth: The New START Treaty could threaten continued U.S. deterrence capability.

Fact:  The New START Treaty would in no way weaken the U.S. deterrent, even as other countries seek to build their nuclear capabilities. As Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General Kevin Chilton made clear in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Under the 700 limit on deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers, and 800 limit on deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers, the US will maintain a sufficiently robust and flexible deterrent force.” In support of the New START Treaty negotiation effort, U.S. Strategic Command analyzed the required nuclear weapons and delivery vehicle force structure and posture to meet current guidance and provided options for consideration by the Department of Defense. This appraisal, in the words of General Chilton, “validated both the agreed-upon reductions in the New START Treaty and recommendations in the Nuclear Posture Review.”  With that assessment complete, the U.S. military has strongly supported the Treaty; according to Secretary Gates, “U.S. force structure plans under New START are supported by General Cartwright, as well as by Admiral Mullen and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command General Chilton, and me.”[6]

Myth: The New START Treaty limits Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities.

Fact: The New START treaty does not impede current or future conventional prompt global strike capabilities. Our military leaders haverepeatedly stated that the treaty does not impair our ability to build and deploy conventionally armed ballistic missiles, if we choose to do so.  Although conventional warheads on ICBMs and SLMBs will count towards the aggregate warhead limit of 1,550, this ceiling fully accommodates our plans to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles and does not interfere with current and future plans for our strategic nuclear forces. As one DoD official testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “DoD has concluded that any deployment of conventionally armed ICBMs or SLBMs with a traditional trajectory, which would count under the treaty limits, should be limited to a niche capability. That’s based on military considerations. The required number could easily be accounted for under the treaty’s limits while still retaining a robust nuclear triad.”[7]

Myth: The Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) interferes with the Senate’s Constitutional advice and consent responsibilities.

Fact: The BCC is not empowered to amend the main treaty text on its own, nor may it make changes to New START’s protocol or annexes that affect substantive rights or obligations of the parties; it can only implement technical, non-substantive modifications to the treaty. One of the lessons from past arms control treaties is that the two sides will need to talk to one another regularly over the duration of the treaty about how the treaty is working out in practice. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has a Special Verification Commission; START had a Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC); the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty has a Bilateral Implementation Commission. Article XII of the New START Treaty follows that tradition and establishes the BCC to promote the objectives and implementation of the treaty.  It is to serve as a venue for the two sides to discuss any concerns regarding the treaty’s implementation.  Similar to the JCIC established in the original START Treaty, the BCC is also authorized to make minor adjustments to the Protocol and Annexes in New START.  At 356 pages, the treaty is very detailed.  As past experience with arms control agreements has shown, some provisions require slight modifications over the life of the agreement.   Administration officials, for instance, envision the BCC making minor adjustments to provisions concerning the content and timing of notifications that are required in the treaty; while certainly important, such alterations are not substantial enough to require an amendment to the treaty that the Senate is constitutionally required to consider and vote upon.

Still, to ensure that the BCC acts accordingly and does not overstep its authority, the

Foreign Relations Committee’s advice and consent resolution specifically addresses the BCC in Condition #8, Understanding #1, and Declaration #6.  Understanding #1 would make clear that any additional New START Treaty limitations on the deployment of missile defenses beyond those contained in paragraph 3 of Article V, including any limitations agreed under the auspices of the BCC, would require an amendment to the New START Treaty which may enter into force for the United States only with the constitutional advice and consent of the Senate.  Condition #8 would require that, prior to any BCC meeting where the Commission will consider proposals to improve provisions in the treaty or resolve questions, the President must first brief the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees on the nature of the material that will be addressed.  Furthermore, the President must also consult with the Foreign Relations Committee in advance of any BCC meetings to determine that the BCC is the appropriate venue for addressing the change, or if an amendment to the Treaty is instead necessary, which would require the Senate’s advice and consent.  Declaration #6 makes clear that the Senate expects the executive branch to brief the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees before and after each BCC meeting regarding any compliance concerns raised by the United States at the BCC meeting.

Myth:  The START Treaty is a partisan issue.

FACT 1: Bilateral arms control treaties have historically passed by overwhelming margins, despite needing only 67 votes in favor of ratification. The controversial Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty passed 93-5. The original START Treaty passed 93-6, theSTART II Treaty passed 87-4, and the SORT (Moscow Treaty) passed 95-0.

FACT 2: Bipartisan National Security Leaders Support the New START Treaty.

Supporters of the Treaty include:

• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, Gen. James Cartwright;
• Former President George H.W. Bush;
• All living former Secretaries of State, including: Condoleezza Rice, Colin L. Powell, James A. Baker III, George P. Schultz, and Henry A. Kissinger;
• Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Schlesinger, Stephen Hadley, Sam Nunn, John Warner.

Myth: The Senate Should Not Deal with New START during the 111^th Congress.

Fact: The 111^th Congress has fully and carefully scrutinized New START. During the 111^th Congress, the Senate has held more than 15 hearings and classified briefings, with at least two dozen bipartisan witnesses.  The full Senate was briefed twice on the Treaty. The Administration addressed over 900 questions for the record.  Moreover, a delegation of Senators travelled to Geneva to meet with the negotiators.  The Senate’s bipartisan National Security Working Group received six briefings from treaty negotiators as treaty negotiations were underway. The Foreign Relations Committee conducted ten public hearings and two classified hearings on the New START Treaty.  Between June 17, 2010 and August 6, 2010, the Armed Services Committee conducted five hearings and three classified briefings and the Select Committee on Intelligence also held hearings on the New START Treaty.  Members of the 111^th Congress have been deeply involved in examining New START and are amply prepared to vote on this treaty.

[1] Statement Of LTG Patrick J. O’Reilly, Director, Missile Defense Agency, before the Committee on Foreign Relations, June 16, 2010, p. 280.

[2]The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Key U.S. Military Leaders and Influential Moderates and Republicans Strongly Support New START.

[3]Letter to Senators Kerry and Lugar from all three Department of Energy/NNSA laboratories, 12/1/10; Text of Senate Executive Report.

[4]Responses of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to Questions Submitted by Senator Lugar, Committee on Foreign Relations, May 17, 2010, p. 88; Responses of GEN Kevin P. Chilton to Questions Submitted by Senator Risch, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 16, 2010, p. 301; Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions: The Moscow Treaty, July 17, 2002, S. Hrg. 107-622.

[5]Responses of Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton to Questions Submitted by Senator Barrasso, , Committee on Foreign Relations, May 17, 2010, p. 97; The Guardian, 11/20/10.

[6]Responses Of GEN Kevin P. Chilton to Questions Submitted by Senator Risch, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 16, 2010, p. 300; Responses Of GEN Kevin P. Chilton to Questions Submitted by Senator Akaka, Committee on Armed Services, July 20, 2010; Responses Of Secretary Gates to Questions Submitted by Senator Chambliss, Committee on Armed Services, June 17, 2010.

[7]Prepared Statement of Dr. James N. Miller, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 16, 2010, p. 272.

Basing area: A permanent facility that supports the long-term operations of a particular strategic offensive system on a permanent basis and is distinguishable from temporary stationing.

Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS): The ability to deliver a non-nuclear weapon anywhere in the world within 60 minutes. Such systems may or may not be ballistic missiles (i.e., some possible CPGS systems are not ballistic for most of their flight paths). CPGS systems are also sometimes referred to as “strategic range non-nuclear systems.”

Cruise missile: A missile that is an unmanned, self-propelled weapon-delivery vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path.  This definition distinguishes cruise missiles from ballistic missiles and remotely piloted airplanes.

Air-launched cruise missile (ALCM): An air-to-surface cruise missile of a type, any one of which has been flight-tested from an aircraft or deployed on a bomber on a bomber after December 31, 1986   The New START Treaty does not directly limit air-launched cruise missiles, limiting instead the heavy bombers capable of delivering long-range nuclear ALCMs. It does not limit ground- or sea-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs or SLCMs”) or their launchers.

Long-range nuclear ALCM: an ALCM with a range in excess of 600 kilometers that is nuclear armed.

De-MIRVed: An ICBM or SLBM that once carried multiple warheads in its payload but has been modified to carry only a single warhead.

Deployed heavy bomber: Any heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments, other than a test heavy bomber or a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments located at a repair facility or production facility.

Each deployed heavy bomber is counted as having only one warhead, regardless of how many it can carry.  This is similar to provisions in the original START Treaty.  This counting rule encourages greater reliance on bombers.  Bombers are slow, can be recalled, and also can be shot down.  Because they are not first-strike weapons, they are considered to be stabilizing systems. Thus, for heavy bombers, the treaty makes use of an attribution rule, rather than a more exact counting rule. This method “discounts” the number of warheads each bomber carries to promote strategic stability.  Because neither the United States nor the Russian Federation maintains any nuclear armaments loaded on its deployed heavy bombers, if the counting approach adopted for deployed ballistic missiles had been applied to deployed heavy bombers, each deployed heavy bomber would ordinarily have been counted as having zero nuclear warheads.

Deployed ICBM and SLBM: An ICBM or SLBM that is contained in or on a deployed launcher of such missiles.

Deployed launcher of ICBMs: A launcher that contains an ICBM and is not an ICBM test launcher, an ICBM training launcher, or an ICBM launcher located at a space launch facility.

Deployed launcher of SLBMs: An SLBM launcher installed on a submarine that has been launched from port, that contains an SLBM, and is not intended for testing or training.

Front Section: The portion of the payload of the final stage of an ICBM or SLBM that contains the reentry vehicle or reentry vehicles and may, depending on design, include a platform for a reentry vehicle or reentry vehicles, penetration aids, and a shroud.

Heavy bomber: A bomber of a type, any one of which satisfies either of the following criteria: (a) its range is greater than 8,000 kilometers; or (b) it is equipped for long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) [Protocol, Part One, Paragraph 23]. The existing U.S. types of heavy bombers are B-52G, B-52H, B-1B, and B-2A.

Heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments:A heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), nuclear air-to-surface missiles, or nuclear bombs.

Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM): A land-based ballistic missile with a range, demonstrated in flight tests, in excess of 5,500 kilometers.  The distance of 5,500 kilometers is based on the shortest distance between the northeastern border of the continental U.S. and the northwestern border of the Russian Federation. The existing U.S. types of ICBMs are Minuteman II, Minuteman III, and Peacekeeper.

ICBM base: For mobile launchers of ICBMs, an area in which one or more basing areas and one associated maintenance facility are located; for silo launchers of ICBMs, an area in which one or more groups of silo launchers of ICBMs and one associated maintenance facility are located.  The Treaty does not establish outer boundaries for ICBM bases.

Multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV): An offensive ballistic missile system that can be launched by a single booster rocket and that carries multiple warheads, each of which can strike a separate target.

“New kinds” of strategic offensive arms: New offensive arms of strategic range that do not meet the treaty’s definitions of existing strategic arms.  When a Party believes that a new kind of strategic offensive arm is emerging, that Party has the right to raise the question of such an arm for consideration within the framework of the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). The Parties understand that, if one Party deploys a new kind of strategic range arm for delivering non-nuclear weapons that it asserts is not a “new kind of strategic offensive arm” subject to the Treaty, and the other Party challenges that assertion, the deploying Party would be obligated to attempt to resolve the issue within the framework of the BCC. There is no requirement in the Treaty for the deploying Party to delay deployment of the new system pending such resolution, however.

“New types” of strategic offensive arms: Refers to new types of ICBM, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments that meet the definitions of the treaty.  In other words, “new types” of arms are created through modifications to existing ICBM, SLBM, and heavy bomber platforms covered in the Treaty, and are accountable under the central limits established by the Treaty.

Non-deployed ICBM and SLBM: When an ICBM or SLBM is removed from its launcher for any reason, then both the missile and launcher become non-deployed for proposes of the Treaty.

There are no numerical limits on non-deployed ICBMs or SLBMs, but the treaty does restrict non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs to being placed only at, as appropriate, submarine bases, ICBM or SLBM loading facilities, maintenance facilities, repair facilities for ICBMs or SLBMs, storage facilities for ICBMs or SLBMs, conversion or elimination facilities for ICBMs or SLBMs, test ranges, space launch facilities, and production facilities, except that they may be in transit between these facilities for no more than 30 days at a time.

Reentry vehicle: The part of the front section that can survive reentry through the dense layers of the Earth’s atmosphere and that is designed for delivering a weapon to a target or for testing such a delivery.

Soft site launchers: Land-based launchers of ICBMs or SLBMs, other than a silo launcher, used for testing, training, or space launch that does not meet the definition of either deployed or non-deployed launchers.  Soft site launchers are not covered by the treaty.

Submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM): A ballistic missile with a range in excess of 600 kilometers of a type, any one of which has been contained in, or launched from, a submarine.  The range of 600 kilometers was selected in the original START Treaty to avoid limitations on tactical naval systems.

Telemetric information: Information that originates on board a missile during its initial motion (launch) and subsequent flight that is broadcast.

Triad: The strategic nuclear force structure consisting of ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear-capable heavy bombers.

Warhead: For the purposes of this Treaty, a unit of account, not a physical item, used for counting toward the 1,500 aggregate limit established by the Treaty.  The term represents the declared number of reentry vehicles emplaced on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs, and the one nuclear warhead attributed to each deployed heavy bomber.