It's Push Comes to Shove Time on Budget Bill

By KAREN TUMULTY

Aug. 3, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON —

It was hard enough the first time around, when the House and Senate only narrowly approved competing versions of President Clinton’s economic plan. This time, as White House and congressional leaders struggle to line up votes for the final compromise version, the challenge is immeasurably greater.

Rarely has the vote of each congressman and senator counted so much. Rarely has a President had so little room to maneuver on legislation so vital to his future.

As the fate of Clinton’s plan is decided over the next 80 hours or so, White House officials and Democratic leaders will exert every ounce of political muscle on a handful of senators and about three dozen members of the House who will cast swing votes.

To know the outcome is to know whether one of six Democratic senators who initially voted against the bill will change his position. The six: Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Sam Nunn of Georgia, J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey.

In the House, where prospects for the legislation are only slightly better, Democrats are focusing on 38 party members who opposed the initial measure, including two from California: Richard H. Lehman of North Fork and Gary A. Condit of Ceres.

The reason for the anxiety is in the arithmetic. Just take a look:

In May, when the 435-member House approved its version of Clinton’s massive proposal for reining in the deficit and revitalizing the nation’s economy with a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, a switch of only three votes would have killed it. In the Senate, only a tie-breaker vote by Vice President Al Gore staved off defeat.

Now, with the House and Senate scheduled to cast up-or-down votes on the compromise version of the plan by the end of this week, a single vote takes on potentially critical proportions.

And, unlike the first balloting, when Clinton and his negotiators could urge approval of the House and Senate versions by promising to make changes in the compromise bill, a vote for the plan now cannot be justified to voters as simply an effort to “move the process,” as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it when she reluctantly voted yes a little more than a month ago.

This is the real thing, and the Democratic lawmakers who came to Washington promising change and reform must face a choice: Cast an unpopular vote for tax increases and spending cuts that very likely will haunt them in next year’s elections or oppose the plan at the risk of being held responsible for dealing a mortal blow to Clinton’s presidency and the idea that Democrats can govern.

“It’s going to be tricky,” conceded Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, who is heading up the Administration’s public relations effort. The final tally “will be just as close as it was the first time around--tight as a tick.”

In announcing the conference agreement Monday, House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) and Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) insisted that they have enough votes for passage. However, other sources said that victory is not assured.

Over the weekend, Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), a supporter on the first vote, announced that he would vote against the final bill. Administration officials said that the defection was not a surprise, but it leaves them searching for a convert among the six Democrats who voted against it before.

The most likely switch, many believe, is DeConcini. There the question is whether negotiators have lowered the proposed Social Security tax enough to placate the Arizona senator, who represents a state with a large elderly population.

Feinstein has refused to commit herself to vote for the package a second time, despite intensive lobbying by the Administration, although head-counters said that she is considered unlikely to vote against it.

Apparently giving up hope of winning Bryan’s vote, who represents a state with an economy that revolves around the casino industry, negotiators decided to stick with language reducing the existing 80% corporate tax deduction for meals and entertainment to 50%. Bryan fears harm to the casino industry if the deduction is curtailed.

Democratic leaders have expressed little hope of changing the minds of Nunn, Johnston, Shelby or Lautenberg. However, a senior White House official said that the President has not given up on Nunn and believes that Lautenberg might agree to vote for the package if his vote is absolutely needed.

“There’s going to be a lot of blood sweated over the next few days, but there’s enough wiggle with enough of them that we’ll get the vote,” the official said.

One questionable vote was nailed down Monday, when Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a harsh critic of the gasoline tax, announced that he would vote for the package again. “I will vote for it because I don’t want to let perfection be the enemy of the good,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

In the House, the situation is just as murky. Without a final package in hand, House leaders have been focusing on the 38 Democrats who voted no last May, said Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), who as chief deputy whip is one of the Democrats’ primary strategists.

Richardson described the sales campaign thus far as “broad general talks. It’s very hard to talk to these guys without a product.” The real arm-twisting, he said, begins today, now that negotiators are finished.

Already, House leaders know that they have lost one previous supporter, Rep. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin (D-La.), who announced that he was switching. Others, including Rep. Lynn Schenk (D-San Diego), are thought to be reconsidering their support.

However, they believe that at least three of the members who voted against it the first time can be persuaded to change their mind. Rep. Paul McHale (D-Pa.), for instance, has already indicated that he is willing to support the bill on this vote.

Still unknown, too, are the stands of the two House members elected since the last vote--Reps. Sam Farr (D-Carmel), who took the California House seat vacated by Budget Director Leon E. Panetta, and Peter Barca (D-Wis.), a vocal critic of the original House measure whose swearing-in was delayed until after the initial House vote so he could not vote no.

From the outset, Republicans have served notice that Democrats should count on no GOP votes for their bill. “My instructions have been to make it tough,” says one GOP strategist of the looming floor fight. “We will use every arrow in our quiver to make this a difficult vote.”

The Republican opposition has forced Democrats to confront the deep internal divisions within their own party.

From the start, conservative Democrats in both houses have been reluctant to support the package, which they said was too long on taxes and too short on spending cuts.

House liberals feel betrayed. After they voted for Clinton’s proposed broad-based energy tax, hoping to use the revenue to revive certain social programs that had languished for the last 12 years, the President and House negotiators bargained it away to win the votes of a handful of conservative senators from oil states.

In particular, the Congressional Black Caucus is angry because it gave every one of its 37 votes to Clinton the first time. Now, some members are saying that they will not be so easily seduced again.

With the stakes so high, a certain amount of gamesmanship is bound to figure into many Democratic votes. “Some will want it to pass and not vote for it,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), a member of the House Democratic leadership.

Fence-sitters will not commit themselves until the last minute, hoping to squeeze every concession they can out of the President and congressional leaders. Even if the final bill is written in stone, wavering lawmakers will be angling for favors on future legislation important to their districts.

Yet the basic problem Clinton faces is that lawmakers have seen no substantial groundswell for his program back home. Higher taxes never stir enthusiasm. And voters are understandably skeptical about assurances from Washington that raising taxes and slashing popular government programs will cut the deficit by a half-trillion dollars.

Democrats know, too, that Republicans will not be shy about exploiting the irony of Clinton’s campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut if his party chooses instead to raise moderate-income Americans’ taxes by increasing the levy on gasoline--something candidate Clinton opposed.

“If a 4.3-cent gasoline tax isn’t a tax on Joe Public, I don’t know what is,” said Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican. “Democrats can’t function without taxes. They are institutionally, genetically incapable of functioning without taxes.”

Times staff writer William J. Eaton contributed to this story.

Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?

The moments of truth for the budget deficit compromise is likely to come in the Senate, where the vote is expected to be close. Here is a look at some of the key votes. Except for Dianne Feinstein, all these Democrats opposed the plan the first time around.

Richard H. Bryan

* Nevada

* With his state dependent on casinos, negotiators considered--then rejected--raising the corporate tax deduction on expense account meals and entertainment.

Dennis DeConcini

* Arizona

* Many see him as the most likely to switch. His vote may hinge on whether Social Security tax threshold was raised enough, a key issue in a state with a large elderly population.

Sam Nunn

* Georgia

* A senior White House official says the President has not given up on Nunn, though a switch of his vote is considered a long shot.

Dianne Feinstein

* California

* Reluctantly voted “yes” a little more than a month ago. She may be less likely to commit this time.

Frank R. Lautenberg

* New Jersey

* President believes Lautenberg might vote for the package if his vote is crucial, a senior official says.

J. Bennett Johnston

* Louisiana

* Democratic leaders have little hope of persuading the Louisianian of changing his vote.