Talks Fail to End Impasse on Gays : Military: Six months of congressional hearings appear likely. A GOP move to enact into law the current ban on homosexuals in the armed forces seems to be forestalled.

In a second day of high-stakes negotiations, the Clinton Administration on Wednesday night failed to reach agreement with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) on whether and how to lift a longstanding ban on gays in the military.

After a two-hour meeting at the White House with members of the committee--Clinton’s third huddle with congressional leaders in three days--Nunn emerged with Defense Secretary Les Aspin and acknowledged that he and the new Administration are still at an impasse.

Both sides agreed that efforts to settle their differences will continue, however, and agreement apparently was reached on a six-month period of congressional hearings and consultation over the explosive issue.

That appeared to forestall, at least for the present, an incipient effort by congressional Republicans to push through legislation enacting into law the present administrative ban on gays in the armed forces--a move that would have plunged Clinton’s young presidency into a major crisis on an issue far removed from its major agenda.

What remained unclear, however, was the status of Clinton’s unequivocal commitment to end the ban on gays in the military. That is, would the agreed-upon six months of consultation be limited to questions of how the military changes its longstanding rules and traditions, or would the basic policy itself be open to negotiation?

“Let’s don’t legislate on something and, in exchange, let’s have the Executive show some restraint,” Nunn said after the White House meeting. “And in the interim, we’ll work on the details.”

But White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, speaking as the meeting with Nunn was ending, said Clinton would not yield on the basic principle. “I think (Clinton) will make it pretty clear,” she said. “The President has decided that he is going to take action to rescind the ban. The President is not willing to compromise on that principle . . . . He’s willing to pay the price.”

The impasse cast doubt on Clinton’s next move, which was to have been the announcement of an interim policy discontinuing the military’s investigations and discharges of homosexuals, as well as the practice of asking recruits their sexual orientation. On Wednesday night, White House aides said the timing and the details of the announcement remain unclear, but they held out hope that some announcement will come before the end of the week.

Wednesday’s emergency meeting came hours after Nunn, in a speech on the Senate floor, made a bid to dominate debate and dictate the outcome of the sensitive political issue.

Nunn, Congress’ most influential expert on the military, said he plans hearings on the issue in March. Until those are finished--a process that could take months, given the length of his stated agenda--Nunn said he will oppose “any kind of action that can be final, or could be perceived as final.”

Nunn buried the proposal to lift the ban under a volley of specific questions--43 in all--and suggested that neither Clinton nor his defense secretary had considered those questions before declaring their intention to act.

“Too many times, we in the political world send down edicts and don’t think about the implications of the things that have to follow,” Nunn said in an impassioned address. “These are not frivolous questions . . . . I would also urge that the White House and the President and all of his advisers, including my good friend the secretary of defense, think through these questions very carefully before they take any kind of action that can be final.

“It’s in everybody’s interest to see if we can resolve this issue through consensus rather than confrontation. There’ll be plenty of time later for confrontation” if the Clinton Administration’s plan fails to protect the military’s morale and its readiness, he said.

Nunn suggested that he had received assurances that no “final action” would be taken until his hearings had ended and Congress had voted on the issue. Earlier in the day, Nunn indicated that he would consider it to be prejudicial to the outcome of the consultations--and therefore tantamount to “final action”--if Clinton continued to declare that the consultations would end in his issuance of an executive order.

But White House aides insisted Wednesday night that Clinton maintains his commitment to lifting the ban on homosexuals’ service at the end of a six-month consultation period.

Aspin, standing at Nunn’s side Wednesday night, said the Administration still hopes to draft and issue an executive order lifting the ban in six months. “The issue under discussion is still what happens in the interim period,” Aspin said.

Despite Nunn’s implied warning, Republican senators insisted that they will attach an amendment soon to a bill--possibly a popular bill providing for family leave--that would write into law the military’s current policy of excluding homosexuals.

The family leave bill, which would provide workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborns or sick relatives, is a high priority for the Clinton Administration. The addition of an amendment barring gays from the military would leave Clinton the unpalatable choice of vetoing the bill or accepting a definitive ban on homosexuals in the military.

Nunn told reporters after his speech: “I’d like to have no final, decisive action by the President and no final, decisive legislation by Congress.”

“The speech really throws everything up in the air,” said Eric Rosenthal, political director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, an organization active in promoting gay and lesbian rights causes. Rosenthal said that before Nunn’s speech, his group counted as many as 40 senators who would likely back Clinton in an early Senate showdown over the issue. Another two dozen were undecided, Rosenthal said.

In the House, Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) on Wednesday introduced the first piece of legislation that would bar homosexuals from service in the military. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who appeared with veterans groups Wednesday to denounce Clinton’s drive to open the military to homosexuals, is expected to introduce the same bill in the Senate if Republicans do not prevail on the issue in an amendment.

Another Californian, Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley), who formally became chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, called the controversy over lifting the ban “a tempest in a teapot,” and said Clinton should “step forward, keep his promise and get on with business.”

But at the White House, some Clinton aides spoke of compromise.