Balanced-Budget Measure Faces Pivotal Test in Congress

WASHINGTON —  Another showdown is set for next month in the long-running drama over a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget. This time, however, President Clinton will weigh in against the measure with a powerful new argument: Health care reform cannot be achieved if lawmakers must limit spending to match revenues each year.

Proponents appear to have momentum in both the House and the Senate, which must each approve the measure by a two-thirds vote to send it on to state legislatures for final consideration.

In the Senate, which is expected to vote Feb. 22, advocates claim they have 60 of the 67 votes they need. Only 20 senators have voiced their opposition.

The remaining 20 undecided senators will be under pressure from both camps. This time, unlike efforts to pass a balanced-budget amendment in 1982, 1986 and 1992, the White House will be using its influence against the proposal.

Clinton has charged that the measure is nothing more than a “budget gimmick” that is so vague that disputes and, ultimately, enforcement will end up in the courts, with judges making decisions that elected officials should make.

The President favors balancing the budget in principle, but he has warned that to do so with a constitutional amendment is to use a blunt instrument that would require huge tax increases, massive reductions in Social Security benefits and “major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that would make it impossible to pass meaningful health reform legislation.”

Only a change in the system for providing medical care, the President has added in a letter to congressional leaders, will provide any realistic hope for reducing the long-term federal budget deficit.

Under the proposed amendment, the President would be required to send a balanced budget to Congress every year. That stipulation would be waived only if a declaration of war were in effect or if the Congress by joint resolution declared that the nation was involved in a military conflict that posed an imminent threat to national security.

After considering the President’s budget proposal, Congress would be required to adopt a balanced budget unless a “super-majority,” defined as 60% of the lawmakers in both the Senate and the House, votes to override the amendment for that year.

The strongest force against the measure may be the Senate’s senior Democrat, West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd, who sees the issue as surrendering a large share of Congress’ power of the purse to the executive and judicial branches of government.

Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), principal sponsor of the measure in the Senate, has predicted “a very close vote.”

In the House, Rep. Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.) is leading the effort on behalf of the measure. In July, 1992, proponents failed by nine votes to get the two-thirds majority needed in the House. This time, Stenholm said: “It’s looking pretty good.”

If Congress approves the measure, it will move to the state legislatures for ratification over a maximum period of seven years. Three-fourths, or 38, of the states must give approval for the measure to become final. It would take effect in 1999, or two years after being ratified, whichever occurs later.