Democrats Ready to Compromise on Key INF Issue, Cranston Says

Democratic strategists pushing for ratification of the medium-range missile treaty with the Soviet Union are prepared to compromise with Republicans on the issue that stands as the principal threat to timely approval of the agreement, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

Cranston, the assistant Senate majority leader, is a chief author of language that Republicans regard as a challenge of presidential treaty authority. In an interview, he said that he and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) hope to strike an agreement with key Republicans before the Senate turns to consideration of the treaty’s Resolution of Ratification, which could come as early as today.

Language drafted by Cranston during committee debate on the treaty cites constitutional authority in stating that the pact’s interpretation will be based on a shared understanding of the Senate and the executive branch of government and that the treaty will not be reinterpreted by a future administration.

The ‘Biden Condition’

Senate Republicans, including those supporting the agreement, resisted the addition of this language, which is known as the “Biden Condition.”

The dispute began with the Reagan Administration’s reinterpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but Democratic senators insist that they are not attempting to reopen that fight and intend the language of the “Biden Condition” to apply only to the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty now being debated.

Cranston took on the chore of getting the language into the INF Treaty after Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) underwent major surgery, which has kept him away from the Senate.

As the debate moved toward consideration of amendments and conditions, Cranston said that he and Pell would be willing to remove the reference to constitutional authority from the language.

That reference, he said, is especially resisted by the White House.

Cranston and Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, a key Republican supporter of the treaty, met privately late Thursday and began discussing “how to get other senators involved and what the parameters of the discussions would be,” a Cranston spokesman said.

During committee consideration of the treaty, Cranston said he proposed three different versions of the “Biden Condition” to Lugar, but the Indiana senator opposed all of them.

With that, Cranston said, he introduced the toughest of the three, including the claim of constitutional authority, giving himself room to negotiate when the treaty reached the full Senate.

As many as four amendments are expected to be introduced to the treaty text today, and then senators will take up the Resolution of Ratification and a dozen or more proposed conditions to it.

Sen. Steve Symms (R-Ida.) made the first move to alter the agreement late Thursday, introducing an amendment that would prevent the treaty from going into effect until the Soviet Union is found to be in compliance with all other treaties between the two countries.

“The Soviets have cheated in the past, and I think they will cheat in the future,” Symms declared.

Senators slogged through a third day of debate Thursday, with growing signs of impatience on the part of leaders anxious to bring the treaty to a vote in time for President Reagan to exchange the instruments of ratification with Mikhail S. Gorbachev during their May 29-June 2 Moscow summit meeting.

Twice, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas reminded his Republican colleagues of the summit meeting, telling them Thursday afternoon that they had a “special responsibility” to President Reagan.

Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) indicated that he intends to begin consideration of amendments early today.

Under Senate rules, the “Biden Condition” will be the first item called up once action has been completed on the treaty text and consideration turns to the Resolution of Ratification.

Among other conditions expected to be offered are proposals to exempt intermediate-range cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads from the treaty and to require a balance between the conventional forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact countries.

Cranston said that there are probably no more than 10 votes against ratification.