Lawmakers Reluctant to Proceed on Trade, Arms Pacts : Congress: Bush suggests delaying vote on most-favored-nation status. Action on 2 weapons treaties in doubt.

Stunned by the ouster of Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, members of Congress said Monday that they are likely to resist any efforts by President Bush to win their approval of U.S-Soviet trade and arms reduction agreements.

Some members of Congress also suggested that the coup could cause them to reconsider Bush’s requests for cuts in defense spending.

Bush told reporters that, because of the military ouster of Gorbachev, Congress ought to withhold action on legislation that he proposed to extend most favored nation trade status to the Soviet Union. At the time, he indicated that he still would like the Senate to ratify new treaties limiting strategic arms and reducing conventional arms in Europe.

Many members of Congress clearly agree with Bush’s desire to delay action on trade incentives for the Soviet Union; some also indicated that they would oppose any movement toward ratification of the arms treaties.

“Just as we would reward the Soviets for reforming, we will rebuke them for stepping backward,” said House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who previously has been an advocate of U.S. economic aid for the Soviet Union. “Specifically, this means no movement on either most favored nation trade status or the START (Strategic Arms Reduction) treaty, both of which are good agreements, neither of which can go forward at this time.”

Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) said that he would question the commitment of the Soviets to abide by a new arms treaty. “It’s very difficult for us to have any confidence in the signing of that treaty . . . based on this coup and martial law . . ,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) and Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) agreed with those who said that the most favored nation trade proposal will be--as Dole put it--”the first casualty” of the Soviet military takeover. But these party leaders were silent on the subject of the arms treaties pending before the Senate.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, noted that the strategic arms treaty, which Bush and Gorbachev signed in Moscow recently, was not expected to come to a vote in the Senate until next year. “And if it does come next year,” he said, “a lot of water will be over the dam by next year.” Lugar said that the treaty governing conventional forces in Europe “will require some walking around.” He described it as a “good treaty,” which probably should be ratified.

Although Lugar agreed with those who view most favored nation status as a moot issue in the wake of the Soviet coup, he said that he does not know what will happen to shipments of U.S. grain that Moscow plans to import with economic credits already approved by Congress. He said that the shipments will be subject to a “legal interpretation.”

Dole indicated that the farmers in his home state are particularly concerned about the impact of the coup on their ability to sell grain to the Soviet Union.

“The question we’re getting in Kansas is ‘What about agriculture credits?’ ” he said. “It probably doesn’t make much difference right now because Western banks aren’t going to loan the Soviets money in this kind of turmoil. The initial impact is that all grain markets are down.”

No matter what they think about ratifying new treaties, virtually all members of Congress who spoke out on Monday emphasized that the Soviets must be persuaded to abide by existing agreements.

“America should have no faith in the assurances of Gennady Yanayev that the coup will not affect the Soviet Union’s domestic reforms or international commitments,” said Rep. William S. Broomfield (R-Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) was among those who called on Congress to “take another look” at military spending cuts in light of the Soviet coup.

But Lugar said that he hopes members of Congress will resist any temptation to increase a scaled-down defense budget, which he characterized as “sound policy.”