 Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. It's been a great pleasure for me today to meet with Senator Dole and to discuss his support for the treaty signed here during last week's summit. The INF Treaty was the end result of a process that took over six years to arrive at the moment of signing. I, in fact, proposed the zero option in the first year of our administration. As a matter of fact, I did so at the National Press Club. Many of the points contained in the agreement were hammered out through tough negotiations on both sides. I welcome the support of the Senate Republican leader and count on his efforts to help ensure Senate ratification. I understand there's a certain degree of apprehension about reaching any agreement with the Soviet Union, but I believe that once the details have been closely examined, the consensus will be that the INF Treaty is a solid step forward, a recognizably positive note move for America. The treaty is consistent with the goals set out by the administration from its first days. Building up our defensive strength was designed to convince the Soviet leadership that they couldn't win an arms race. The second half of the formula is reaching agreements to reduce weapons on both sides to an equal and verifiable level. Such reductions are in our interest and the interest of world peace. This treaty accomplishes exactly what we set out to do. First and foremost, it is the first agreement in history to reduce, not simply limit the buildup of nuclear weapons. The Soviets are in fact giving up more weapons in order to reach equality at a lower level. This is a breakthrough precedent that can serve as the basis for progress in other areas. Furthermore, this treaty is not based on some notion that the Soviets can now be implicitly trusted. Given their record, I would never have signed a treaty that did not contain the most stringent verification regimen. There's been an impressive exchange of data, and there will be continuing exchanges after the treaty goes into effect. There will also be the right of on-site inspections to confirm what we've been told. During the entire process of destroying the INF missiles, each side has the right to observe in order to ensure compliance with the treaty. We will even be monitoring the facility where their SS-20 missiles were assembled and have the right to visit other INF missile facilities on short notice. It's not a matter of trust. We will watch, inspect, and be present for the destruction of these missiles. And for 13 years after the treaty enters into force, American personnel will be on-site in the Soviet Union to make sure there are no more SS-20s being produced. succinctly put, this treaty contains verification provisions and other safeguards that should impress even hardened skeptics. However, but I believe some of our opposition is not just a result of a perceived defect in the treaty, but also flows from a concern that our country will continue to deal with the Soviets from a position of realism and candor. This treaty is reason for hope. It is a good first step, but we're not letting our guard down, and we don't want anyone to have expectations that cannot be met or verified. As Jefferson and other presidents before me have stated and restated, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That's never been more true than today. And we'll remain vigilant, realistic, and dealing with the Soviet Union. This treaty is consistent with that commitment, a verifiable trust. I'm confident that over these next several weeks, as more senators have the opportunity to review the terms and provisions of this agreement, that they'll come to the conclusion that it deserves ratification. And now I'm going to turn this and oh, I'm turning this over to Senator Dole. Is that the word, Mr. President? Mr. President, we're very upset about this, sir. Do you feel that you're helping Mr. Dole off the hook on INF? Let's put the same thing up. If we would like to have the President a question before he leaves, can you answer the... He's going to leave until I finish my statement. Well... Are you being dragged into the campaign, Mr. President? No. What if I might just give my statement, then? As I told the President a couple of weeks ago, when we were asked about the treaty, I said, give us some time to look at it, some time to read it, some time to analyze it. And I've done precisely what I told the President I would do. I've not only read the treaty, I've had the opportunity to have it analyzed by experts in and out of government. And I've spoken directly with our key NATO allies. And I've had a series of meetings with the President, members of the administration, to address my concerns. In all of this, I've been concerned not only about the treaty itself, but also about its strategic and political implications. Now that the treaty has been negotiated and signed, the focus will shift to the Senate. The Senate will decide whether this treaty goes into effect or not. And as the Republican leader, I will lead the fight for its approval in the Senate. I've been the point man in the Senate for the President's national security programs. And over the years, we've won big critical fights. And I hope that we can win this one too. What we want, what I told the President just a few moments ago, is a big bipartisan majority. I think it's also fair to say, and we've discussed this with the President, with Colin Powell and others, that there are areas of concern that have been identified, special concern to me and my colleagues, whether it's verification or compliance and the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe. And I think by addressing these areas, working with the President, working with the administration, the Senate can strengthen the treaty even further while not requiring renegotiation of the Soviets. And I think we've been assured that we can work together on these areas, and that's the only intent and the only purpose of it. So I guess I would say, as I said a couple of weeks ago, that as soon as I've been satisfied that we could verify and that there was compliance and a strong support from the Allies, pretty much what the President said in his next to last paragraph, as soon as other Senators go through this process, you're going to see support building for the treaty. And finally, I think we're all very grateful to the President, talking now about my colleagues in the Congress in both parties for his outstanding work and for his efforts that led to the signing of this very significant agreement a little over a week ago. President, if you get a question up in presidential politics, sir, what about presidential politics? No, there's nothing of that kind here. George Bush feels that you're bailing him out because he was failing in Iowa because of waffling on the treaty. Were you afraid to stand on the platform with him when he spoke? I used to be in. I thought it was the courteous thing to do. Hello, Senator. Thank you, Mr. President. Bush's guy says that this isn't a matter of conscience. It's a matter of expedience because you're slipping in the polls in Iowa. Well, that's not accurate, but you know, I don't want to get into a Bob Dole-George-Bush thing, but we just have different roles. Mine is an active role. Mine is the leader of the Senate. He doesn't even vote on the treaty. It's true. I mean, it's a fact. I mean, he does not vote on the treaty. You were being hurt on the INF issue. You lost the mayor of Ames, Iowa. You lost three people, three top supporters in Rhode Island today. Weren't you being hurt by your failure to back the president on the INF? No, no, I don't think there's been any change. In fact, we had to plan a question in Iowa last week to bring up the INF treaty. So, you know, I don't want to spend the Bush people putting on it, but my point is this, the president's done an outstanding job. It's going to come to the Senate. I said from the start, it's a two-phase operation. The first phase is negotiating, signing the treaty. The second phase is the ratification process, and I'm going to be a vital part of that. I'm the only Republican candidate who's going to even vote for the treaty one way or the other. And I'm here to keep my promise to the president. He wanted my support. He has my support. And I'm going to be very active as I have in the past to try to get the treaty ratified. You weren't stampeded by the political scene? No, I said ten days ago, I can read the polls. I could have read the polls two months ago. But we had to, you know, as soon as the treaty was available up in S-407 where it's secure, then it was made public, we started to work on it. I talked yesterday with Margaret Thatcher, with Helmut Kohl, with the prime minister of Italy. I spent some time this morning with Secretary Schultz and with Admiral Kroll. I think overall I've visited about 16 different sources that I have some confidence in, obviously including the president on a couple of times. And if I'm going to provide the votes, I had to be objective. I had to make my own judgment. And just, I don't think it's criticism, but the vice president was for it when the president was for it. That's the way it works. That's the way the system works. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, you made this impression. Senator Dome, how unequivocal is your support? You came out here and said you support it, but then you seem to want some reservations. This has been the perception that people have been talking about. Do you support the treaty? What are your reservations? What reservations will you support? I told the president I supported the treaty. My job now will be to try to get as many Republican votes as I can, and I want a lot of Republican votes. I don't want all the Democrats or nearly all the Democrats and a handful of Republicans. That doesn't mean that we cannot work with the administration, as I believe we can, to strengthen the treaty in certain areas. And we'll be – well, whether it's – you know, we're a lot of concern about conventional weapons imbalance. And it seems to me that's an area that's bipartisan concern. It's a concern, obviously, to the president. We discussed this with Colin Powell when he met with us the other day. And I think we can work with the administration on that. If there's any question about verification, we can work with – What can be done through reservations? Well, there all can. You've got declarations, understanding reservations, and amendments. They have different impact. We can make it clear that – at least a statement that, you know, there'd be no other treaty considered unless there's some redress. You know, there are a lot of things you can do. It wouldn't be a start – a serious start. We can do anything. Well, we don't have any language. I'm just saying these are areas of concern. Nobody, as far as I know, has any amendments drafted, but, you know, we are alert to what's happening up there. Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without amendments? Are you suggesting this won't be ratified without some amendments and stuff? I don't want to get into – there are amendments, declarations, understandings, and reservations. It won't come through clean the way it was written. Well, no – but you can have these things without – they're not killer amendments. In other words of this, no renegotiation. It depends precisely on what it is. You can amend the implementing legislation, and you avoid all that work with the treaty. Would you vote for this treaty in its present form if it's not changed in any way? Well, it's not – Did you vote for it right now, the way it is? I'm not certain I'd answer that, but, you know, I'm support the treaty. If the vote were to date, I'd vote for it. But it's seen me we have the right and we have the obligation of the Senate to do something else. That's to go through the process. Is it equivocal in your support if you're not prepared to say you vote for it now, as it is? No. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the Senate shall advise in consent. We've had about 1,500 treaties before the Senate in the last couple of hundred years, and some haven't been accepted, and a lot of them have been modified, but not many of them have been modified to the killer amendments. What are your concerns about verification? The President says it's about as good of a perfect verification system as one of your – It's a very good verification. Why don't you do that way? Why don't you do that? No. What I said, I expressed the concerns of some of my colleagues on verification. We had 10 of my colleagues down to see the President a couple of days ago. I don't express concern about verification. Senator Wallop expressed concern about compliance. I'm the Republican leader. I'm not expressing just my concerns. I'm expressing concerns of the Republicans, who I hope in the long run will vote for this treaty. Can you have enough concerns about verification, Chief? No. We're looking at verification. I don't have any present concerns. Senator Al Haig, that George Bush cheapened the summit by putting commercials on the TV about his meetings with Corbettel. No, I don't want to comment on that. Are you willing to pledge to us today you won't put commercials on TV showing you with the President here? Yeah, I didn't discuss that with the President. But no, I don't know. I don't have any with Corbettel. How about with Ronald Reagan here? Senator, you said I do support the treaty. I told the President I do support the treaty. And then you said you wouldn't answer whether you would vote for it. Well, I don't think that's a fair question. It's not going to happen that way. But let's say we had the debate and weren't anything offered, and it's in the present form. Yes, I'll vote for it. But that's not a good question. Aren't we turning your endorsement today into the Senate's role in more or less of a rubber stamp? You've tried to distinguish yourself from George Bush by saying it's your job as a Senator to live up to Article II, Section II of the Constitution with Dyson Consent. You're implying that the hearings that are going to be held before the various committees are irrelevant. And that you're just going to push ahead and try to get the support for this treaty. So any attempt on my part? You must have been not listening when I talked about the concerns about verification, compliance, and the imbalance of conventional weapons. That's what we're... Do you want to see your role now? We're not undermining the role of the Senate. No, no, I see my role supporting the role of the Senate. That's precisely the role we have. I see my role pretty much as Senator Byrd described it the day before yesterday on the floor when he said that the Republican leader wanted to fulfill his responsibilities on the Constitution, and he doubt that there would be a two-thirds support for the treaty without the Republican leader's support. So what I'm doing is precisely what I told the President I would do. I have a different role than the Vice President. I'm not here to quarrel about the Vice. We just have different roles. I'm the leader. He's the Vice President. Yes. I think at this point we don't have any language. I mean, we're looking at conventional weapons. I know Sam Nunn is. I know Senator Byrd is, but nobody's running around and say, here's an amendment. You know, we've only had to think about eight days. Yes. Senator, were you trying to say earlier that you do not think your delay in endorsement of the treaty has hurt you politically at all? No. I think when people understand, as they will, because suddenly all the actions moving to the Capitol, the will when the treaty is set up, I don't think it's been set up yet, hearings will start the 19th or the 26th depending on when we come back. And I'll be testifying before the Foreign Relations Committee. We'll have a lot more information at that time. I assume Senator Byrd may be testifying, too. But I think there was so much hype and a lot of misunderstanding in the media about what the role of the Senate was. But I don't think there's been any change. Senator Byrd, you said you had reservations. That's what I said. I wanted to have some chance to look at it. So I've done that. You mean you think those people who are defective would have anyway? Who were they? Well, the mayor of Ames. Good, now. I'm a honey of... She got a job from the governor who's for Bush, you know. So it's just a payoff? Senator, if the treaty is not a question of standing in line, what is more than the erosion of your lead? We don't have any erosion of our lead. We think it's a tight race. It's been a tight race from the start. We've always said it was a tight race. You know that... But that's another matter. Senator Byrd, you're not losing points. You're not losing points. Some polls show you can drop it. Who's? I don't know which one. Well, there aren't any. Senator, do you think that your presence here with President Reagan gives a boost to your campaign? And on the other hand, Kurtz, Vice President Bush? I don't think the president's trying to do that at all. He said precisely what he was doing. He was staying neutral. And I think it's just a matter of fact that I am the Republican leader and I'm going to be active in this process. And I told the president to give me a little time. Let me take a look at it. It took seven years to negotiate it. Give me a week to look at it and I'd let him know. It wasn't mine. It's a pretty good idea, though, as it worked out. Senator, the vice president's people say that... Who are they? I mean, I don't talk about... You've got to identify people. I believe it at that, but the time being... I don't believe they're here. But trust me when I tell you that the vice president... I've been verified. That the vice president's... I don't know that in Russian. The vice president's people are saying it's fine. If Bob Dole wants to support this treaty, we welcome him on board. Johnny, come lately as he is. The vice president's been for this thing for six years. And basically saying that the vice president will continue to benefit by taking the high ground on this thing. How do you think that's going to play politically? Isn't it just a little too late for you to get any political... No, no, I think he just... Maybe I've made it clear there is a difference in our roles. I vote. I vote on the treaty and he doesn't... He does it inside. You're going to be a tie with a two-thirds majority. You figure that one out. Yeah. That's what Dupont said. So I was ready for that one. No, I don't think I had anything to do with it. Somebody suggested it. And I thought it sounded like a pretty good idea. Does Senator Baker have to twist your arm to get you out? No. I agree to come willingly. You know, that's... Well, it wasn't mine. I mean, I don't know. I mean, I don't... This thing just happened. We're just passing through town. I understand what you're saying about the treaty itself. You talked about declarations and amendments and various other things that couldn't propose it as they are. I'm still trying to understand exactly what Bob Goldfinne thought of the additive. I understand that. Not in your role as Senator in order to Republican leader by talking with you personally. Do you feel that it should be changed, amended, declaration...