Soviet Aid and Defense Cuts May Snap Budget Accord : Deficit: Showdown may come this fall when key senators seek deeper Pentagon reductions than agreed. Battle could spill over into 1992 elections.

Congress’ desire to aid the fast-collapsing Soviet Union and reduce U.S. defense spending is likely to strain--and possibly snap--last year’s painfully crafted budget agreement, sparking a battle between Democrats and President Bush that could spill over to the 1992 election campaign.

Leading Democratic lawmakers already have proposed new cuts in Pentagon outlays, partly to pay for aid to the distressed Soviet republics, but the Bush Administration and some key congressional allies are dead-set against the idea.

As a result, lawmakers in both parties are searching for a temporary political escape hatch--possibly a joint declaration by Congress and the Administration that Soviet aid qualifies as “emergency” legislation and therefore is exempt from the accord’s spending ceilings.

But that approach would also require White House approval, and it almost certainly would trigger Democratic demands for similar exemptions for domestic “emergencies”--such as a proposed extension of unemployment benefits or other anti-recession programs.

The first showdown may occur this fall, when the Senate considers the $291-billion defense spending bill for fiscal 1992. Key senators are expected to argue that the demise of Soviet communism justifies additional reductions beyond the five-year, 25% cut already scheduled.

But the big confrontation--involving the fate of the B-2 Stealth bomber and “Star Wars” research--may not occur until next spring, after the political situation inside the Soviet Union is clarified and Bush’s new budget can be debated in an election-year atmosphere.

“With the unexpected and catastrophic collapse of the old Soviet structure, there is going to be increased pressure to reduce defense spending,” said Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

“I think there’s a substantial probability that the budget (agreement) could be changed to allocate more resources out of defense and into domestic spending or even into deficit reduction as a result of what’s occurred in the Soviet Union,” Sasser said.

Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) was even more specific. “The situation is fundamentally altered,” he said. “Communism is finished. Over five years, we should be able to save another $80 billion in defense . . . and return it to U.S. taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.”

Any such funding shifts are made extremely difficult by last year’s budget accord. The pact established strict limits for three broad categories of spending--defense, foreign aid and most domestic programs--and barred any shifts between categories until 1993. The restrictions can be waived, however, if Congress and the White House agree to declare an emergency.

Sasser acknowledged that Congress is unlikely to revise the budget accord this year without the Administration’s consent. He said there is a somewhat better chance of reallocating defense funds for economic or humanitarian aid to the Soviets, presumably by declaring an emergency or designating the aid as a form of defense spending.

In the House, Democrats appear to be taking a stronger stand in favor of amending the budget agreement and making outright reductions in Pentagon spending in response to the changes in Moscow and the breakaway Soviet republics.

“I don’t know how you can keep that (budget) agreement together in light of the realities of the world situation and, even more importantly, the situation at home,” said House Majority Whip David E. Bonior (D-Mich.).

“There’s been a prolonged recession, and a lot of people are hurting, crying for help. We’ve got to meet their needs. As far as I’m concerned, Americans come first. I’m not for spending a penny for the Soviet Union beyond helping them avoid starvation in winter.”

At the same time, a key aide to the House Democratic leadership said there may be partisan skirmishes this year over funds for the B-2 bomber and the “Star Wars” anti-missile program, formally known as the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Despite the Democrats’ increasingly combative mood, the President will have a strong hand in the ongoing debate. With his veto power, he can block any changes in the budget agreement and thwart any attempts to evade spending caps by means of “emergency” designations.

Bush’s veto could also frustrate any attempts to scuttle the B-2 or slash “Star Wars” research. In addition, he has strong allies on both sides of the aisle in Congress who will resist efforts to reduce defense spending beyond the cuts already scheduled.

Members of Congress are certain to take into consideration a recent Washington Post poll that indicates the American people are almost evenly divided over whether to make more cuts in defense because of the events in the Soviet Union.

A bare majority--52%--opposes additional reductions in the Pentagon budget, primarily because of uncertainty over what might happen next in the one-time “Evil Empire.”

“We have to exercise great care in the weeks and months ahead,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), third-ranking Republican leader in the House. “There are people (in the Soviet Union) who have dedicated their lives to central control and an authoritarian system, and to assume they have given up and gone away would be a mistake.”

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) argued strongly against new defense cuts to pay for humanitarian aid, an approach advocated by leading House Democrats Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Les Aspin of Wisconsin.