Bush Urged to Defy Congress on Defense : Budget: Advisers call $2.2 billion in programs approved by lawmakers ‘pork barrel’ spending. They seek a test of constitutional authority.

In what could become a major constitutional clash, senior advisers to President Bush are urging him to defy Congress and spend $2.2 billion of the Pentagon’s budget according to Administration preferences rather than those mandated by lawmakers, Administration and congressional sources said Wednesday.

At a White House meeting late last week, a majority of senior Administration officials present argued that much of the $2.2 billion, appropriated for a variety of military programs, is unnecessary “pork barrel” spending inserted into the budget at the insistence of powerful members of Congress.

Instead of using the money for the purposes specified in appropriations bills, Administration officials are urging Bush to spend about $1.3 billion of it on other military programs of his own choosing and set aside the rest for such things as aid to Panama.

Such a step, which is being opposed by Budget Director Richard G. Darman, would put the President on a collision course with Congress. Since the earliest days of the republic, Congress has jealously guarded its control over the federal purse.

Darman reportedly does not believe that it makes sense to antagonize lawmakers over a test case that may well fail in court.

In legal terms, the issue poses a fundamental question of governmental power: Who ultimately controls the flow of federal dollars, the President or the Congress?

The Constitution gives to Congress the exclusive power to levy taxes and appropriate funds; appropriations are made through the regular legislative process--in bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.

But the Constitution also gives the President the power to administer the federal agencies that spend the money.

Historically, that has led to tension between the legislative and executive branches. Congress has continually used its appropriations authority as a tool for influencing policy--and sometimes for imposing programs on unwilling presidents.

Senior advisers to Bush, particularly White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, have argued since Bush’s election that the President’s powers have been whittled down too far over the years. Those advisers, sources say, have been looking for a case to test how far Bush can push his authority.

Because they contend that the spending in question is wasteful, those advocating a confrontation believe that Bush would be in a strong political position if he defied Congress. In addition, they say, the President’s role as commander-in-chief might make a test case involving military spending legally more favorable to Bush.

The issues have not been aired in court since the early 1970s, when courts overturned President Richard M. Nixon’s attempts to block the spending of money Congress had appropriated. At the time, however, Nixon, weakened by the Watergate scandal, did not push his case to the Supreme Court, and defenders of presidential power argue that Bush now could win.

The current confrontation began earlier this year, when the White House informed Congress that it intended to postpone spending for 19 Pentagon programs.

The GAO, which serves as an investigative and auditing agency for Congress, has the power under the law to determine when a White House move to put off spending goes beyond the boundaries. Tuesday, the GAO ruled that nearly all the White House’s proposed changes went too far.

The Administration had argued that each of the changes it sought were justified because of “promising developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.” But, the GAO report noted, the White House gave no indication of why, specifically, the changes in Europe affected the particular programs the Administration wants to cut any more than it does those on which Bush would like to spend more money.

The GAO can file suit seeking to force the White House to comply with its ruling if the Administration fails to accept the decision.