WASHINGTON -- The centerpiece of the Republican reform agenda in Congress -- a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution -- heads for a showdown in the Senate today three votes short of the 67 needed for approval.
Republican leaders scrambled last night to address the concerns of Sen. Sam Nunn, a Georgia Democrat, and two other senators who hold the decisive votes on the constitutional amendment. But they remained unwilling to change the amendment as Mr. Nunn wants.
"If I have my way, people are going to have to stand up and vote" on the amendment as it is, said Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch.
If the tally falls short today, Mr. Hatch predicted, blame would fall on the Democrats, whose votes are needed to make up the two-thirds majority necessary to pass a constitutional amendment before it can be sent to the states for ratification.
Five Democrats are listed unofficially as uncommitted, but Mr. Hatch described Mr. Nunn's vote as critical to winning the three votes needed.
But Mr. Nunn, whose objections have been echoed by two colleagues previously expected to support the amendment, sounded just as determined to hold his ground. He said that he was willing to consider a Republican plan to address his fears about giving judges too much power over the budget process in a separate bill, but that he had "grave doubts" that he would find such a compromise acceptable.
Mr. Nunn said he feared that the amendment, as passed by the House, would allow the federal courts to step in and force Congress to raise taxes or cut spending if Congress fails to balance the budget or cannot produce the three-fifths majority needed to run a deficit.
"These federal judges are great folks . . . but they're not elected," Mr. Nunn said at a news conference yesterday in Atlanta.
A Senate defeat today of the balanced budget amendment -- which has already passed the House by an overwhelming margin -- would be the first major setback for the House Republicans' "Contract with America," as well as for the broader mission of the new Republican-led Congress.
Congress 'centerpiece'
"This is sort of the centerpiece of what this Congress is all about," Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a Kansas Republican, said of the constitutional amendment, which would require the federal budget to be balanced by 2002 or within two years of ratification by 38 states.
Even if the amendment is approved by Congress, it is likely to face rough going in the state legislatures. State lawmakers already are watching with concern as the Republican House begins to hack away at federal programs that the states would have to pay for or do without.
President Clinton remained mostly out of the battle until last weekend, when he attacked the proposed amendment on several occasions, warning that the Republicans' plan was to "make war on kids." But the president has offered little more than background noise to a high-pitched lobbying campaign that is focused on individual senators, particularly Democrats facing re-election next year.
Five of the 47 Democrats are considered uncommitted. But until late last week, two of them, Sens. John B. Breaux of Louisiana and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, were being counted as leaning in favor. After Mr. Nunn announced his concerns about the amendment Thursday night, Senators Breaux and Dorgan raised similar objections.
In fact, Mr. Dorgan surprised supporters of the amendment by declaring on the Senate floor last night that he would vote against the proposal if his concerns were not addressed. His comments were characterized by some senators as a standard last-minute bargaining tactic, but his new position threatened to cloud the amendment's prospects.
Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Wendell H. Ford of Kentucky are being counted with the opponents of the amendment.
All four have joined with Mr. Nunn in trying to win a change in the amendment that would bar the federal courts from interfering with the budget process.
One out of 53
Of 53 Republican senators, the only opponent of the proposed amendment is Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee.
The Senate is scheduled to vote on Mr. Nunn's proposed change today before a formal tally on the amendment itself. But the Republican leadership is resisting any changes in the amendment because that would require it to be returned to the House for a second vote and slow its momentum before the states can vote on ratification.
Instead, Mr. Hatch sent Mr. Nunn written promises yesterday from Mr. Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich to address his concerns in separate legislation that would be taken up later this year. The Republican leaders also submitted to the Georgia senator a draft version of the proposed bill.
Mr. Nunn said he would consider the offer, "but lawyers and all the experts that I've talked to say that you cannot pass the constitutional amendment and then come back with a simple law and take away any jurisdiction that has been conveyed, implicitly or otherwise, with the constitutional amendment.
"I understand there's some worry about submitting this back to the House," Mr. Nunn added. "But everybody I've talked to says that this amendment will strengthen the vote in the House rather than weaken the vote in the House."
Mr. Nunn's public worries have pulled Congress back into a decades-long debate over Congress' power to limit the authority of federal courts. Mr. Nunn argues that Congress could put the courts off-limits as interpreters of the amendment's terms only by putting a ban on court action in the amendment itself. The GOP version of the bill does not include such a clause. If Congress and the states approved an amendment that restricted court power, there would be no doubt that that would be the last word.