WASHINGTON -- The fate of a proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring the federal government to balance its books rests with four uncommitted Democratic senators.
Aides to John B. Breaux of Louisiana, Wendell H. Ford of Kentucky and Byron L. Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota said the lawmakers were undecided yesterday and might not hTC announce their decisions before Tuesday's vote.
GOP counters said the proposal, a major component of the House Republicans' "Contract with America," is one or two votes short of passage. The House approved the measure 300-132 on Jan. 26. Sixty-seven of 100 Senate votes are needed for it to succeed on Tuesday.
"This to me is the most important vote I may ever cast in the United States Senate," Mr. Conrad said this week. "I want it to be a vote that can stand the test of time."
President Clinton, aware of the Senate's agonizing over the issue, said in Ottawa yesterday that the amendment was a "bad idea." He added: "We do need to keep bringing this deficit down and I am committed to doing that. [But] I don't think this is the right way to do it."
The reluctance of the four fence-sitters to commit themselves illustrates the doubts they and some other senators have about the impact of the amendment on Social Security benefits and the possibility that the federal courts might order tax hikes or spending cuts to ensure a balanced budget.
Two Democratic proposals to allay the concerns are slated for consideration Tuesday before the final vote on the amendment itself.
One, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, would bar the government from using Social Security trust funds to balance its books.
An earlier version of the measure was soundly trounced last week. Ms. Feinstein and two other senators, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland and Harry Reid of Nevada, have said they would not support the balanced budget amendment if Social Security is not protected. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland, a Democrat, is leading opponent of the amendment.
Another measure, from Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, would block courts from having the authority to raise taxes or cut spending to enforce the amendment's requirements. Mr. Nunn said that under the Constitution's checks and balances, only Congress should have this authority.
Only one of the Senate's 53 Republicans, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, is expected to vote against the amendment. That means supporters need 15 Democrats. Twelve have announced their support.
If the Senate passes the measure, 38 states must ratify it before it can become part of the Constitution.