Impasse May Be Declared on Cranston : Politics: Ethics panel might issue a statement that it has ‘agreed to disagree’ on probe of senator. That would save him from a trial on the Senate floor.

The six-member Senate Ethics Committee will be asked this week to declare an impasse in its consideration of charges that Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) violated congressional ethics in his dealings with Lincoln Savings & Loan owner Charles H. Keating Jr., sources said Monday.

With the committee divided 3 to 3 along partisan lines, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) plans to offer a resolution at the panel’s next meeting stating that the members have “agreed to disagree” over how Cranston’s case should be resolved, the sources said. A meeting is tentatively set for Thursday.

An impasse would mean that Cranston, 77, a four-term senator, can avoid an embarrassing trial on the Senate floor in the final year of his long public career. He already has announced plans to retire next year when his term ends.

Cranston, who has declined repeatedly to comment on the committee’s deliberations, contends that he did nothing wrong and deserves no punishment.

If Lott’s resolution is accepted by the committee, as expected, the report outlining the findings probably will contain the views of both sides, sources said. The committee’s three Republicans think the evidence against Cranston is serious enough to warrant a Senate trial; the three Democratic members oppose a full Senate hearing of the allegations.

During a series of Ethics Committee meetings over the last few weeks, sources said, the panel’s members have been unable to find a compromise that would break the logjam and they are known to be growing weary of the inquiry, which began nearly two years ago.

“There comes a point where you simply say: ‘We have to agree to disagree,’ ” said a knowledgeable source, who predicted that Lott’s resolution will be adopted.

It has been more than eight months since the committee issued its initial findings, which cleared four other senators but found substantial evidence that Cranston had “engaged in an impermissible pattern of conduct” by soliciting donations from Keating while intervening with federal regulators on behalf of Lincoln.

In all, Cranston persuaded Keating to contribute nearly $1 million to a variety of funds, including his campaign treasury, the California Democratic Party and several voter registration groups established by the senator. While accepting these donations, Cranston contacted federal thrift regulators on Keating’s behalf.

Critics contend that contacts from Cranston and other senators helped to encourage the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to delay action against Lincoln for more than two years. When the bank was seized in early 1988, the federal takeover cost about $2 billion.

The other four senators are Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

In judging ethics cases involving senators, the Ethics Committee has broad latitude to hand out a variety of punishments--from a mild rebuke to a recommendation of expulsion. In Cranston’s case, the committee has never considered expulsion.

Earlier this year, the committee appeared to be moving toward recommending a reprimand of Cranston by the full Senate. But the panel’s resolve weakened after a number of unforeseen delays and what GOP sources claim was intense lobbying by Cranston.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, the citizens lobby that brought the charges, said he would see it as a “reversal of position and a clear abdication of responsibility” if the committee adopts Lott’s resolution. He said the panel has uncovered no new evidence since January that would bring them to a conclusion that differs with the original findings.