133. Letter From Senator Helms, Grassley, McClure, Thurmond, Lott, Symms, Hatch, Pressler, and Wallop to President Bush1
Reports of Secretary Baker’s trip to the Soviet Union last week for the purpose of drafting a proposed framework statement for a START treaty have raised two profound concerns.
The first is that the Jackson Amendment to the 1972 SALT I Agreement requires, in the language of the Amendment, “equal levels” of strategic forces in any future treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union limiting intercontinental strategic forces.
Of course, this is still the law of the land on the fundamental U.S. objective in strategic arms control treaties. Yet reports of the meeting between Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze suggest that the United States conceded to the Soviets a 40% advantage [210 vs.150] in the number of heavy bombers carrying air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), and also a more than two-to-one advantage over the United States [3,700 vs. 1,800] in the potential number of ALCMs carried by these bombers.
[Page 723]Are these reports correct, and, if so, do they meet the spirit and legal requirements of the Jackson Amendment?
Similarly, did the United States agree to a Soviet-proposed range-limitation on sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) which allowed the Soviets to keep several thousand short-range SLCMs against which the U.S. has no equivalent force?
If so, does this agreement meet the spirit and legal requirements of the Jackson Amendment?
Secondly, the Helms Amendment to the INF Treaty states:
“Any joint statement by the United States with the USSR of a framework for the negotiation of strategic arms treaties contemplated hereby, and such framework itself, shall serve for the purpose only of guiding the conduct of negotiations which the United States herein has declared its desire to pursue expeditiously, and shall not constrain any military programs of the United States [emphasis supplied] unless otherwise provided for in accordance with Section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.”
Section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, of course, states that U.S. armed forces may be limited only through the treaty-making power or through further affirmative legislation. Nevertheless, press reports state that Secretary Baker did agree to constrain U.S. military programs in a so-called “side letter” to the proposed START framework statement in which the United States agrees not to modernize the U.S. “Tacit Rainbow” ALCM, and also not to equip this ALCM with a nuclear warhead.
Is it correct that Secretary Baker did agree to such a side letter constraining U.S. military programs? If so, does such a letter meet the spirit and legal requirements of the Helms Amendment to the INF Treaty and to Section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act?
Mr. President, we would appreciate a response on these matters before the framework statement with the Soviet Union is signed at the forthcoming summit.
Sincerely,
- Jesse Helms
- Chuck Grassley
- Jim McClure
- Strom Thurmond
- Trent Lott
- Steve Symms
- Orrin G. Hatch
- Larry Pressler
- Malcolm Wallop
- Source: George H.W. Bush Library, Bush Presidential Records, Brent Scowcroft Collection, USSR Chronological Files, START Files, OA/ID 91122–005, Soviet Power Collapse in Eastern Europe—Strategic Arms Control (May 1990). No classification marking. All brackets are in the original text.↩