Curb on Germ, Chemical Arms Faces Bush Veto : Weapons: White House aides say the bill imposing sanctions on nations or firms usurps presidential power.

President Bush is likely to veto legislation that would impose sanctions against countries using chemical or biological weapons and companies selling components for such weapons, a top Administration official said Wednesday.

His intention to veto the measure is “pretty firm,” the senior White House official said, even as members of Congress intensified bipartisan efforts to persuade Bush to sign the bill.

Bush’s top aides complain that the bill usurps presidential authority over foreign policy--an authority that Bush has zealously guarded. But, with more than 210,000 American troops in Saudi Arabia facing the threat of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s chemical arsenal, the weapons sanctions bill poses a stiff test of Bush’s resolve not to yield any of his foreign policy options.

The measure, which was passed by Congress before it adjourned last weekend, would require the President to impose for a year at least six of 11 possible trade sanctions against any nation that uses chemical or biological weapons. It also would make any company that knowingly assists other countries in developing chemical weapons ineligible for U.S. government contracts for a year.

Secretary of State James A. Baker III and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft have sent letters to Capitol Hill maintaining that mandatory, unilateral sanctions would unduly restrict presidential flexibility in responding to those resorting to gas or germ war.

The legislation “would impose inflexible requirements and mandatory actions,” State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said this week. “This would constitute objectionable intrusiveness into executive branch prerogatives and be potentially fatal to our efforts to cooperate with friends and allies.”

Congress overwhelmingly adopted the final version of the bill against a backdrop of criticism that the Bush Administration had failed to respond strongly enough to President Hussein’s past use of chemical weapons and of revelations that Western companies had provided assistance to poison gas programs in both Iraq and Libya.

“With American soldiers facing chemically armed Iraqi forces in the Saudi desert, I find it incredible that some in the Administration continue to oppose mandatory sanctions,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), one of the bill’s sponsors, said Wednesday.

“I firmly believe that, had the pending chemical weapons bill been law two years ago. . . , our servicemen and women might not today be facing Iraqi troops at the Kuwait-Saudi border.”

Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah) announced Wednesday that he had collected the signatures of more than 70 senators for a letter urging Bush to ignore the entreaties of his top advisers and sign the bill.

“A veto on these narrow grounds would be contrary to our shared commitment to eliminate chemical weapons,” the letter said.

Bush is expected to kill the legislation with a “pocket veto,” which cannot be challenged, by not signing the measure within 10 days after he receives it. Proponents of the bill said that they would pass another sanctions bill with enough votes to override a Bush veto when they return to Washington.

“This will be the highest priority in January,” said California Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City). “It’s as if he (Bush) has learned nothing from his ill-conceived policies toward Iraq.”

Under the bill, the list of 11 sanctions from which the President must choose include cutting off foreign assistance, arms sales, multilateral development bank assistance, U.S. government credit, import restrictions and diplomatic relations.

Much of Iraq’s ability to produce nerve gas and biological weapons has been supplied by German companies in recent years. Bonn has imposed stringent new export controls in recent months and opened investigations into such exports.

Virtually all trade between Iraq and other nations has been stopped by a U.N. resolution approved shortly after Iraq’s Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait.

Some analysts said that the implications of a Bush veto of the sanctions bill would not be lost on Saddam Hussein, who earlier was seen by some in the West as a bulwark against Iran and a valuable trading partner.

“It could send a message to Saddam that, if this crisis ends, it will be business as usual and it will put profits ahead of stability,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow for foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

Times staff writers David Lauter and Douglas Frantz contributed to this story.