WASHINGTON — Rep. Tom Andrews lent his support Tuesday to an amendment that would compel the federal government to raise enough revenue to meet its operating expenses each year, but would permit deficit spending to pay for capital expenditures that Congress decides would contribute to economic growth.

Noting that Andrews has consistently opposed the idea of a balanced budget amendment, Rep. Olympia J. Snowe accused the Portland Democrat of making the “the first of many reversals and flip-flops” that will occur in the Senate campaign between the two Maine lawmakers on fiscal issues. The House begins debate on the balanced budget question Wednesday, with a vote scheduled sometime Thursday. Both Maine representatives are running for the Senate seat being vacated by Majority Leader George J. Mitchell.

According to Snowe, Andrews voted against both the original constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget she and most Republicans support, and an alternative proposal offered by his party’s majority leader during the 1992 congressional session, the last time the issue was debated. While not disputing that fact, Andrews accused Snowe of misrepresenting his position on the budget amendment question, which a new poll indicated has the overwhelming support of voters this year.

A survey released Tuesday by the National Taxpayers Union, the Washington-based group that has crusaded for a balanced budget amendment for more than two decades, found that 67 percent of voters interviewed in a nationwide poll backed a change in the U.S. Constitution that would require Congress to equalize federal revenue and expenditures except during war, or when authorized by a three-fifths vote of lawmakers. According to the survey, 72 percent of those interviewed said they would be “more likely” to back supporters of a balanced budget amendment. The issue may have even more political bite in Maine, where deficit hawk Ross Perot gathered his largest vote percentage of any state.

In a House floor speech, Andrews said, “The only way out of our budget crisis is through economic growth. We need a new budget process that allows us to plan for the long term, that enables us to develop and carry out an investment strategy designed to fuel our economy.” The Democratic congressman said, “Washington should look at our nation’s budget in the same way a business looks at its budget. Just as businesses make a distinction between operating expenses and capital expenses, so must we as a nation.

“A capital budget approach would mandate that the operating side of the federal government is balanced,” he said, “while also enabling our nation to make the investments necessary to ensure future economic growth.” He cited the interstate highway program begun by President Dwight Eisenhower more than 40 years ago as an example of the type of capital project that should be financed through borrowed money rather than yearly revenue. New businesses that sprung up along the national highway system generated jobs and revenue many times more than the cost of the highway.

The balanced budget approach supported by Snowe and Sen. William S. Cohen, which failed enactment by three votes in the Senate last month, would have a “disastrous” impact on Maine because mandated federal spending cuts would drain money from programs for the economic conversion of closed military bases and other needs, Andrews said.

“This shortsighted, conventional balanced budget amendment may score political points for its supporters and make for good political hot air, but it would be disastrous for Maine,” he said. Those remarks angered Snowe, who has been one of the leaders of the balanced budget amendment effort during most of her years in Congress.

“As little as three weeks ago, he was calling the balanced budget amendment a gimmick,” Snowe said. “There were no suggestions of an alternative. He is making a calculated attempt to reverse himself on a position he knows is not popular in his district, his state or the country.

“He has been against all balanced budget amendments. He has called them gimmicks and bumper-sticker solutions to serious problems,” Snowe said. “Now he supports one?”

“It’s unfortunate she said that. She’s dead wrong. There was nothing in the Gephardt alternative in 1992 that even remotely suggested a capital budget,” Andrews said, making a distinction between the original budget amendment and the capital budget plan he supports.

Far from being a Johnny-come-lately, Andrews insisted that he has been making speeches in support of that same capital balanced budget amendment as early as March 10, 1992. “I co-sponsored legislation during my first term. I have made speeches about it throughout the 1st District of Maine. I testified before the Commission on the Reorganization of Congress in favor of the idea,” Andrews said.

Joel White, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, said the capital budget idea is an old chestnut rolled out by balanced budget opponents to make it appear they are fiscal conservatives. A similar proposal introduced by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., drew 22 votes in the Senate last month, enabling enough senators to straddle the issue and defeat NTU’s amendment, he said.

Snowe said that the capital budget alternative sponsored by Rep. Bob Wise, D-W.Va., would permit Congress to roll over an estimated $2 trillion of “capital’ federal expenditures onto the deficit ledger by the middle of the next century. In effect, anything a simple majority of Congress says is a “capital investment” will be paid for with borrowed money, she said.

An aide to Wise said that plan was tougher on deficit spending than the alternative considered by the Senate last month, but conceded it was “very unlikely” it will seriously challenge NTU’s balanced budget amendment. A conservative Democrat, Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas, is the principle sponsor of that plan which is backed by Snowe and a majority of Republicans.