Sigh of Bipartisan Relief Greets Bush’s Plan to Trim Troops : Reaction: Members of Congress are quick to hail the proposal. They had been feeling political pressure to reduce the defense budget.

President Bush told Congress exactly what many lawmakers wanted to hear Wednesday night when he unveiled his new negotiating proposal to reduce the number of Soviet and U.S. troops in Central Europe to 195,000 on each side.

Democrats who had been attacking Bush for being too timid in reacting to sweeping political changes in Warsaw Pact nations hailed the President’s announcement, as did Republicans who were under political pressure to trim the Pentagon’s $306-billion budget.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said he was proposing that the United States and the Soviet Union reduce their troops in Europe to 195,000 each, far below the proposed ceiling of 275,000 under negotiation in conventional arms reduction talks. Presently, the Soviets have 570,000 troops in Eastern Europe and the United States has 255,000 in the Central European nations where Bush is proposing to reduce U.S. forces.

Bush’s proposals brought an almost audible, and bipartisan, sigh of relief on Capitol Hill as early reports of Bush’s initiative revived hopes of a substantial savings in military outlays within the foreseeable future.

Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), talking to reporters before the chief executive’s State of the Union address, said the Administration’s original suggestion for overall Soviet and American troop ceilings of 275,000 each in Europe has been overtaken by events.

“The Soviet Union will be under great pressure both internally and for economic reasons, and externally because of the new democratic regimes developing in Eastern Europe, to remove the bulk and hopefully all the Warsaw Pact troops from Eastern Europe,” Foley said.

Because of that pressure, the Speaker said, “the United States can well consider dramatic reductions from our forces in Western Europe.”

The Speaker commented on the troop cut proposal as word of Bush’s intentions to announce the new U.S. negotiating stance swept Washington in advance of the President’s first formal appearance before Congress since his inauguration a year ago.

Rep. Esteban E. Torres (D-La Puente) also applauded the news. “The proposed troop reductions, coupled with a reduction in conventional weapons, can begin to set us on the crucial path towards a meaningful peace divided,” Torres said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) described Bush’s announcement as “a constructive step,” although he called for additional measures to reduce the defense budget.

Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Coronado), a conservative member of the House Republican leadership team, said he considered it appropriate for the President to seek cuts in troop strength before pursuing reductions in nuclear weapons.

Hunter said U.S. nuclear strength is needed to offset Soviet advantages in military forces, tanks and artillery in East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Rep. William S. Broomfield (R-Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the President was signaling his support for “gradual defense reductions” and opposition to “drastic, overnight cuts in the military.”

Broomfield said American military strength has kept the peace for 40 years, and it was now time to lay down arms. “Everyone knows the world is changing, but no one knows where the changes are leading,” he said.

Even before Bush’s speech, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he favored a sharp reduction in U.S. and Soviet troops in Europe, possibly with a ceiling for each nation of 175,000 to 225,000. The proposed cutback has been debated within the Administration for weeks, Nunn told a reporter.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), ranking GOP member of Nunn’s committee, also endorsed major troop cuts as part of a negotiated agreement with the Soviet Union, adding that they should amount to more than just “a trim around the ears.”

Democrats, especially, have been demanding major reductions in military outlays since the collapse of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall last summer.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a leading advocate of such cuts, said recently that American troops in Europe could be reduced from 300,000 to 200,000 without affecting U.S. or European security.

Richard G. Darman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, was bombarded Tuesday and Wednesday with Democratic complaints about the Pentagon’s share of Bush’s new $1.23-trillion spending blueprint for the year starting Oct. 1.

Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), for example, told Darman that the Administration’s proposed defense outlays could not be justified at a time when Communist governments were crumbling.

“President Bush is greeting the peace by saying that he’s charging us for it,” Schumer complained.

It was in this highly critical congressional climate that the President unveiled his surprise announcement about seeking lower troop levels in Europe through negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Foley, who was scheduled to provide a Democratic response to the President later Tuesday night, planned a general speech about his party’s goals and principles.

“I don’t intend to do a point-by-point debate with the President,” Foley said.

Staff writer Michael Ross contributed to this story.