Pentagon May Be Budget Battle Casualty : Defense: Clinton opposes more cuts, but analysts expect to see efforts in Congress to shift funds from the military to help domestic programs.

Despite President Clinton’s vow to hold firm against further defense cuts, the Pentagon is facing the possibility of protracted battles in Congress this year with lawmakers seeking to rechannel some of its money to domestic programs.

Officials say the fiscal 1995 budget Clinton will send to Congress early next month will provide $264 billion in new spending authority for military programs, up about $3 billion from fiscal 1994, which ends Sept. 30.

The figure represents something of a victory for departing Defense Secretary Les Aspin, who had fought to prevent the White House from slashing more. The small increase over the fiscal 1994 level is meant to finance a military pay raise mandated by Congress last summer.

But analysts say that, in the face of growing voter demand to pare the federal budget deficit further, they expect to see increased efforts on Capitol Hill to transfer money from Pentagon accounts to help ward off cuts in key domestic programs.

One reason for the increased pressure is that under new budgetary procedures Congress has imposed a series of spending caps on discretionary spending programs--those not formally mandated by law--thus forcing lawmakers to fight even harder over the remains.

Last year, the House and Senate removed longstanding budgetary restrictions--called fire walls--that had protected defense spending from such forays, opening the way for lawmakers to divert money from the military whenever they can get the votes.

Also facing defense planners is the question of how quickly the White House will move to obtain extra financing for peacekeeping operations in Somalia and Iraq so that the Pentagon does not have to use its operating funds, which could further erode military readiness.

Congressional strategists say that it is too early to tell precisely which groups of lawmakers will challenge Clinton’s defense spending plan, but they are almost certain that such efforts will be made.

The President decided to hold the line on military spending cuts after critics--including many conservatives in Congress--warned that further reductions could erode military readiness.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has served notice that his panel will oppose any effort to cut defense spending more rapidly than Clinton now plans, and other conservatives in Congress have rallied to support him.

The Administration also is facing a growing prospect that over the medium-term it simply will not have enough money, even under current plans, to support a military big enough to win two major regional conflicts at once, as Clinton’s new policy requires.

Although the Administration formally denies any such gap, some private analysts have projected that the shortfall could total as much as $120 billion over five years.

If those estimates prove to be accurate, Clinton could find himself having to scramble to find the money to maintain the force size that the Pentagon has prescribed.

The President told Congress in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday that he “said no” to those who wanted him to cut defense spending further this year, for fear that too deep a reduction might hurt the nation’s military preparedness.

“The budget I (will) send to this Congress draws the line against further defense cuts and fully protects the readiness and quality of our forces,” he said.