Bipartisan Roar of Approval Greets Troop Plan : Reaction: However, Democrats seldom join Republicans in applause for the President’s domestic proposals.

Congress roared its approval Wednesday night of President Bush’s new proposal to seek additional U.S. and Soviet troop reductions in Europe, raising hopes of a larger peace dividend than most lawmakers had anticipated.

Democrats and Republicans jumped to their feet and joined in applause when Bush made his surprise announcement that he would seek a negotiated ceiling of 195,000 each on U.S. and Soviet forces in the heart of Europe, down from the 275,000 cap he had proposed last May.

The Soviets currently have 570,000 troops in Eastern Europe, while the United States has 255,000 in the Central European nations where Bush is proposing to reduce U.S. forces.

On several other issues, however, Democrats tended to sit on their hands while Republican lawmakers cheered a series of domestic proposals in the chief executive’s 40-minute State of the Union address.

And some Democrats who have contended that Bush has reacted too timidly to the toppling of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe said he should go beyond the troop cuts and chop funds for strategic weapons such as the B-2 bomber and MX missile.

Republicans, who were under pressure to seek larger cuts in Pentagon outlays than Bush proposed in his 1991 budget, felt the President’s troop cut proposal would blunt the Democratic attacks.

Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said Bush’s proposal was overdue. “I don’t think the United States should totally withdraw from Western Europe,” the Speaker said, “but very substantial (troop) reductions are not only possible, but I think inevitable.”

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) warned, however, that the savings from demobilizing 100,000 troops from Europe would be in the $3.5-billion range--a significant amount but nowhere near the $10 billion or more that Democrats hope to pare from the Pentagon budget.

“We are sending a message to our friends in Western Europe that they can’t forever depend on U.S. troops for security,” Lewis said.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), however, called for even larger military spending cuts and said, in view of the crumbling of the Warsaw Pact, Bush should not make the troop reduction in Europe dependent on reaching an agreement with the Soviets.

A cautionary note was added by Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who said the United States should not inadvertently encourage Moscow to keep more troops in Eastern Europe than it would without a negotiated deal.

“For both sides, it should be a ceiling, not a floor,” Aspin said.

Bush’s speech, interrupted more than 30 times by applause, touched only briefly on some of the controversies that are expected to spark confrontation with the Democratic-controlled Congress in this election year.

A reference to the invasion of Panama and the toppling of Gen. Manuel A. Noriega drew the first standing ovation, followed by strong applause when he announced that American troops sent to Panama would be brought home by the end of February.

But few Democrats joined in the applause when the President announced he would press for a reduction in capital gains taxes--an issue that pitted the White House in a months-long losing battle against Democratic leaders of the House and Senate last year.

Similarly, a repetition of Bush’s “no new taxes” slogan brought Republican, but few Democratic, cheers.

Alluding to a proposal by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) for a two-year, $62-billion reduction in Social Security payroll taxes that has attracted some conservative GOP support, the President declared: “The last thing we need to do is mess around with Social Security!”

This triggered a big, spontaneous response, starting from the Republican side of the aisle and spreading to the Democratic side. Some House Republican leaders felt it was a good omen for the President’s fight against the popular Moynihan plan.

Speaker Foley, who has been criticized for not being aggressive enough in dealing with the President’s program, delivered a Democratic response that attacked Bush on several issues, including his controversial China policy.

Foley also charged that Bush’s actions on the budget did not match his rhetoric.

“You can’t become the education President . . . by proposing a meager 2% increase in the education budget,” Foley said.

Discussing capital gains, the Speaker said Democrats would stand by working people, adding: “We will do all we can to make sure that the greatest part of any tax cut, of any kind, goes to those of you who live on a paycheck--not just the few who have the highest incomes, the largest stock portfolios and . . . the potential for the biggest tax shelters.”

And Foley also accused the Bush Administration of misusing the Social Security trust fund to mask the size of the federal budget deficit.

“We reject the suggestion of some Republicans to privatize the system,” he said. “We think it’s the same old bad idea, another version of the repeated Republican attempt to undermine Social Security.”

Most members, however, focused on the troop reduction proposal in their comments.

“It’s costing us $150 billion every year to maintain our NATO presence,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), “so anything we can do to further reduce our commitments in Germany would be very popular with a broad cross section of Congress.”

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), ranking GOP member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was delighted by the announcement, saying Bush “seized the initiative in Geneva, Vienna, and on the floor of the United States Congress.”

“It puts a better public relations flavor on his defense budget,” said Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), “but we’ll frankly have to wait and see how it turns out.”

Staff writer Michael Ross contributed to this story.