3 Senators Join Foes of Balanced-Budget Amendment

The tide in the Senate appeared to be turning against a proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution as three more lawmakers Friday joined the ranks of opponents.

Aides to Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), a leading foe of the plan, said they were “hopeful” of getting the 34 votes necessary to block approval of the measure before the scheduled vote on Tuesday.

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), the bill’s sponsor, and his allies continued to seek support from the ranks of eight to 10 undecided lawmakers. Backers of the measure need 67 votes to achieve the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment.

The proposed amendment-- which also requires House passage and subsequent approval by 38 state legislatures to become law--would forbid federal budget deficits by requiring the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Deficit spending could resume only by a vote of three-fifths of the members of each chamber.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who had been uncommitted, announced Friday that he would support a rival plan offered by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that would exempt Social Security and capital expenses from budget-balancing requirements.

Conrad predicted that Simon would fall three to five votes short of the number needed to pass his amendment and said Reid’s plan was the only balanced-budget proposal that could command a two-thirds vote.

Reid announced that he would vote against the Simon bill if his own plan failed, and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who had been leaning against Simon’s proposal, also declared his opposition.

Stevens contended that the measure would force large spending cuts that would handcuff the nation’s ability to make a rapid military buildup in case of a world crisis. He also said it would slash outlays for agriculture, land management and other programs important to Western states.

“This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time to address the wrong problem,” Stevens said.

Simon responded by saying that ending deficits--which is the purpose of the proposal--would protect programs cited by the Alaska lawmaker, adding: “If we don’t change things, defense spending is really going to get the squeeze.”

Sentiment for a balanced-budget amendment has been increasing as record deficits have become a way of life. But proponents have not been able to muster the required two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House, despite a decade of trying. The House is expected to pass a version of the amendment, perhaps next month, no matter what the outcome is in the Senate.