Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 2, 1994                   TAG: 9403020213
SECTION: NATIONAL/INT                    PAGE: A-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

SENATE REJECTS BUDGET BILL

The 63-37 vote capped a debate that blended Constitutional and economic arguments on an issue that Congress has wrestled with for more than a decade.

``We must not feed the nation this poison pill,'' Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said shortly before the final vote. He said the amendment would damage the Constitution's balance of powers and undermine majority rule without necessarily erasing deficits.

But Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill., countered that for ``25 years in a row we have had deficits,'' and said the national debt has grown steadily in his two decades in Congress. Sooner or later, he warned, the government would resort to printing ``funny money'' to sustain that debt. ``We ought to stop this before we get to the edge of the cliff.''

The House is expected to vote on an identical amendment at midmonth, and supporters there are within striking distance of a two-thirds majority. Regardless of the outcome, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said the issue would ``absolutely not'' return to the Senate floor this year.

Although close, the final Senate vote was largely drained of suspense. Sponsors said in advance they were likely to lose - despite a $4.5 trillion debt - to opposition that included the White House; Mitchell; and Byrd, the 76-year-old chairman of the Appropriations Committee who patrolled the Senate floor for a week countering each argument made by supporters.

On a vote of 78-22, the Senate earlier brushed aside a milder version of the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would have sheltered Social Security from budget-cutters and permitted borrowing for permanent government projects such as highways and buildings. It also would have made it easier to run a deficit in a time of recession.

Many Republicans scorned it as a loophole-ridden proposal that would do little to rein in deficits, and charged it was designed to siphon off support from their own proposal. ``It is not a serious balanced budget amendment,'' said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Backers bristled at the suggestion they were playing politics with the Constitution, and said their approach was patterned after the type of restrictions under which many states operate.