In Key Shift, DeConcini Says He’ll Back Budget : Economy: Move by Arizona senator seen as ‘giant step.’ Clinton acts to win over wavering lawmakers.

President Clinton gained the potential winning vote for his budget bill Wednesday when Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) declared that he would support the $496-billion deficit-reduction package.

DeConcini’s announcement came as the President signed an executive order that for the first time will require the government to deal with cost overruns in such mandatory benefit programs as Medicare and Medicaid.

“Both my arms feel twisted,” admitted DeConcini, who has been courted often by presidents seeking his support on major issues.

“It’s a giant step forward,” White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said. But she warned that the fight is not over. “I’d hate to characterize it as a done deal.”

The House, where the outcome is considered too close to call, is scheduled to vote today on the compromise plan to raise taxes and cut spending, with a Senate vote set for Friday.

Democratic leaders voiced confidence in the lower chamber that they would pass the plan by about the same six-vote margin they achieved when considering an earlier version of the bill in May.

The 175 House Republicans--like their Senate counterparts--all are expected to vote against the bill on grounds that it raises taxes too much and cuts spending too little.

“It is not there yet but it looks OK,” said Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), one of the House negotiators.

Some traditionally loyal Democrats--such as Reps. Norman Y. Mineta of San Jose and Patricia Schroeder of Colorado--indicated that they may vote against the bill, despite intense leadership pressure. A prominent conservative, Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.), decided to vote no this time after backing the original version of the bill.

In the Senate, DeConcini’s support was needed to offset the defection last week of Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), who had backed an earlier version of the bill.

And while DeConcini’s decision could seal a victory in the Senate, the suspense was maintained when Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) said that misgivings about the budget bill may cause him to vote against it.

DeConcini’s vote is essential to achieve a 50-50 tie that could be resolved in Clinton’s favor by Vice President Al Gore, who cast the decisive vote when the Senate passed its original version of the bill in June.

Forty-four Senate Republicans and six Democrats are expected to vote against the bill, so Clinton needs every other Democrat in the Senate on his side to succeed.

One of the six Democrats expected to vote no--Sen. Richard H. Bryan of Nevada--said that he is leaning against the compromise version of the bill that he opposed when it first came before the Senate.

In a move to gain the backing it needs, the Administration took several steps Wednesday.

Clinton’s executive order--designed to appeal to conservative Democrats--would force the President to disclose when spending on entitlement programs runs above budget estimates and to either propose offsetting cuts and tax increases--or to explain why he does not do it. The House would vote on any proposal that the Administration submits but the Senate has not yet addressed the issue.

In a related step insisted upon by DeConcini, the President also signed an executive order creating a “deficit-reduction trust fund” that would make sure revenues from new taxes and spending cuts are used to lower the deficit. Opponents dismissed the action as a worthless accounting gimmick.

The Administration also moved to defuse some Republican and Democratic criticism of tax hikes contained in the budget plan. The Treasury Department announced that wealthy Americans whose income tax rates would be raised retroactively to Jan. 1 could pay the additional taxes in yearly installments over three years, without the usual penalties.

Rep. Richard H. Lehman (D-North Fork) said that the Treasury’s approval of a three-year grace period is “an admission that it’s a foolish policy.” Rep. Lynn Schenk (D-San Diego), who expects to support the budget bill, also objected to the provision, saying: “It is enormously unfair to say that we are going back to January, 1993,” on higher income tax rates.

The public also got into the drama Wednesday. Capitol Hill switchboards lit up with hundreds of thousands of calls after Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) urged voters to get in touch with their elected representatives. In the Senate, 376,603 calls were received in a 12-hour period ending at noon.

The House scheduled a vote today after intensive member-on-member lobbying to produce the 218 Democratic votes needed to clinch passage.

House Democratic leaders, acknowledging late Wednesday that they were still shy of the necessary support for the bill, struggled to pin down essential votes to send the measure to the Senate for a final vote before Congress begins a monthlong recess.

Clinton gave another pep talk Wednesday to the Democratic caucus, declaring that he is very hopeful about prospects of passing a bill that he said would change the direction of the country.

“The choice is whether we do this (now) or flail around for another 60 to 90 days,” the President told reporters afterward.

Four House Democrats who previously voted against the initial budget bill announced that they would support the compromise version--but there were offsetting defections by other lawmakers.

Democratic veterans Schroeder and Mineta were unhappy with the bill for different reasons.

Schroeder listed herself as “undecided” because she was upset by the Senate’s insistence on a 4.3-cent increase in the gasoline tax, as well as the retroactive income tax hike.

“The real problem is that it makes us (in the House) look like eunuchs. . . . People (in the Senate) who have the tantrums get the rewards,” fumed Schroeder.

Mineta said he was leaning against the bill because its energy tax was shaped by Boren. Since proceeds from the gas tax are not going into the highway trust fund but will be used to reduce the deficit, Mineta said, he is reluctant to vote for the bill--even though it has many good provisions.

“Maybe, in the final analysis, a ‘yes’ vote is the only way to go,” Mineta said, thinking out loud.

The agonizing by fence-sitting Democrats and the leadership attention focused on them drew a complaint from Rep. John Bryant (D-Tex.) about “wobblies who have to be babied across the finish line anytime we do something that takes courage.”

Clinton’s executive order requiring action on mandatory benefit overruns was an eleventh-hour attempt to win crucial votes from moderate and conservative Democrats in both the House and Senate.

Administration officials described it as a breakthrough in controlling the explosion of costs in federal entitlement programs, which have grown largely unchecked for many years.

Leon E. Panetta, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said that the mechanism for annual review of benefit spending would mark the first time that the President and Congress will have to address each year the issue of unchecked outlays.

Times staff writers James Risen and Michael Ross contributed to this story.

* RELATED STORY: D1