Perle and Congressmen Clash on SALT II

Congress “will stand with the Soviets” if it enacts legislation to force President Reagan to abide by the 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty, a top Administration official charged Thursday.

The statement by Assistant Defense Secretary Richard N. Perle to members of the House Armed Services Committee clearly angered proponents of the treaty, some of whom already have introduced legislation that would reverse Reagan’s decision to abandon the treaty.

“Either the Congress will stand with the Administration . . . or the Congress will stand with the Soviets,” said Perle, the Administration’s most-outspoken proponent of a hard-line U.S. approach to arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union.

While insisting that he did not intend to impugn the patriotism of any member, he later added, “There is a real question of whether the Congress of the United States will align itself with the Administration or with the Soviets, and that is a strategic reality.”

‘Disservice to Congress’

“I think you do a disservice to the Congress when you talk that way,” Rep. Nicholas Mavroules (D-Mass.) told Perle.

Even though he was unaware of Perle’s remark to the House members, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) also criticized the defense official for opposing arms control. “Richard Perle has done to the Administration militarily what David Stockman did economically,” he said, referring to the former budget director.

Over the expressed opposition of a majority of members of the House and Senate, President Reagan announced last week that he would no longer abide by the limits on nuclear weapons established in the treaty. He said his decision was a response to Soviet violations of the pact’s limits.

Many lawmakers oppose Reagan’s action on grounds that it would unleash the arms race. Separate bills offered this week by Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.) and Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) wo1970037792into law.

‘It Is Nonsense’

When Administration officials questioned the constitutionality of codifying a treaty in law, Biden fired back: “This is typical of the verbal chicanery by which the anti-arms controllers won their dubious place in history, and it is nonsense.”

Other lawmakers--including Reps. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) and Dante Fascell (D-Fla.) and Sens. Bumpers, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), John H. Chafee (R-R.I.) and John Heinz (R-Pa.)--said that they would introduce nonbinding legislation in an attempt to persuade Reagan to reverse himself.

“I don’t believe the Administration is beyond redemption,” said Leahy. “We are leaving the church doors open. They can always come forward and be saved.” If the President fails to abide by a nonbinding resolution, Leahy said, he will favor mandatory legislation.

“We’re not trying to embarrass the President but, if all else fails, we could deny funds” for missiles exceeding the SALT limit, said House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-Tex.).

House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) told a commencement at New York University that the President’s decision “has taken its foot off the brakes of nuclear arms deployment and is about to press down on the accelerator of nuclear arms production.”

Expects Restraint

Perle argued that Reagan’s decision will not unleash the arms race because the President intends to show restraint and he expects the Soviets to do the same. He dismissed the outcry from North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies on grounds that the treaty “is not very well understood” in Europe.

After appearing before the Armed Services Committee, Perle told reporters: “The idea that we are going to have an unrestrained arms race and massive increases in new weapons is absolute rubbish.”