Key Senate Democrats Want 4 INF Pact Issues Clarified Before Ratification Vote

Key Democratic senators Friday called on U.S. and Soviet officials to clear up four potential problems in the superpowers’ intermediate-range nuclear weapons treaty before the Senate moves to a vote on ratification.

Their move appeared to increase chances that the pact, signed last December, will remain unratified when President Reagan goes to Moscow at the end of May for his summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

Because of the four items still troubling senior Democrats, and reportedly some Administration officials, Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd said Friday that he will postpone the opening of the treaty debate by the full Senate at least until May 11.

Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, listed the outstanding items as:

-- Absence of a firmly agreed upon definition of a weapons delivery vehicle.

-- Questions on the United States’ ability to verify Soviet possession of “futuristic weapons” banned by the agreement.

-- Indications that Soviet officials interpret some on-site inspection provisions in a manner disputed by the United States.

-- Whether the Administration has made a sufficient commitment to the modernization of surveillance satellites.

Senate floor debate had been scheduled to begin May 9, but Byrd said the treaty deliberation will be put aside until the Intelligence Committee meets with members of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees and the bipartisan leadership of the Senate on May 10.

Warns of Further Delays

Saying the debate schedule will not be keyed to the schedule for the Reagan-Gorbachev summit, Byrd warned that the issue could be further delayed if senators conclude at the May 10 meeting that the problems have not been resolved. Resolving them could involve attaching “understandings” or side-agreements to the treaty that would force reopening negotiations with the Soviets.

The agreement, banning ground-launched missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles, was signed by Reagan and Gorbachev at the Washington summit last December. The Foreign Relations Committee approved it 17-2 and sent it to the full Senate on March 30.

Although Senate Democrats are nearly unanimous in support of the pact, they have for weeks carped at the Administration’s handling of the ratification, specifically over whether Administration testimony represented the official interpretation of the treaty and whether “futuristic” weapons are banned by the agreement.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reiterated Friday his assertion that the Senate must attach a side agreement, to be signed by both governments, making it clear that new intermediate-range weapons that could use “futuristic” technologies to attack targets are banned by the accord.

Of the four problem areas cited by Boren, Nunn told reporters: “I am cautiously optimistic that they can be resolved, but I am not ready to say that they are solved. They are not solved. We are working on them in good faith. The Administration is working on them in good faith.”

Boren indicated progress had been made Thursday in a meeting between senators and Lt. Gen. Colin L. Powell, the White House national security adviser, and he said he is hopeful that the remaining questions can be resolved by the May 10 meeting.

At the State Department, spokesman Charles Redman renewed the Administration’s call for the Senate to move “expeditiously” with the ratification.

He confirmed that Soviet technical experts had raised an interpretation of inspection provisions that the United States regards as more restrictive than the treaty.

The position, he explained, was not acceptable to the United States.

“These issues,” he said, “relate to the size of containers, vehicles, or structures which U.S. inspectors can examine, and the degree of access that U.S. inspectors will have within a facility during an inspection.”

Since the issue surfaced at the technical level, Redman said the United States has moved it into diplomatic channels where it is subject to higher-level consideration.

No Timetable

Byrd refused to speculate Friday on how long it will take the Senate to complete work on the treaty once it is called up for action on the floor.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), who was the Democrats’ chief tactician in moving the agreement through the Foreign Relations Committee, did not attend Friday’s press conference with Byrd, Boren, Nunn, and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.).

But an aide to the California senator said Cranston remains confident that the issues will be resolved and the agreement will be ratified in a “timely manner.”