The House fell short of the votes necessary to approve a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a largely sybolic exercise on Friday afternoon.

The House voted, 261 to 165, in favor of the amendment, which would prohibit federal spending in any fiscal year from exceeding tax receipts for that year. Bottom line, it would make it impossible for the federal budget to add to the deficit. While a majority of the chamber favored the measure, two-thirds of the House -- 290 members -- is needed to approve an amendment to the Constitution.

All but four Republicans favored the amendment, while Demoocrats split, 25 in favor, and 161 against.

One of the most surprising votes against the amendment was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the fiscally hawkish chairman of the House Budget Committee.

"I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes," Ryan said in a statement. "Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished. Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this Amendment."

Other Republicans joining in the "no" vote were Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, and Reps. LOuie Gohmert (R-TX) and Justin Amash (R-MI).

The vote was required as part of the law that created the supercommittee this sumer; its inclusion was mostly a symbolic nod to conservative Republicans in Congress, who had initially rejected packages to defuse the debt ceiling crisis this summer that lacked such an amendment.

Democrats had been somewhat divided over the measure, though party leaders in the House had opposed it. Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) actively courted Democratic votes against the amendment, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a member of the supercommittee and ranking member of the House Budget Committee, recently sent a letter to fellow Democrats urging them to vote "No" on the measure.

"A Constitutional amendment that cannot easily be enforced to balance the budget is a hollow gesture that at the very least will be ineffective," Rep. Van Hollen said in the letter, "At the very worst, a balanced budget amendment enshrined within the Constitution could generate a Constitutional impasse with catastrophic consequences."

However, the 25-member Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, had released a letter on Thursday in support of the amendment.

Today's vote on the BBA is not without historical precedent. In 1995, the BBA passed the House with bipartisan support (including that of Rep. Steny Hoyer, who is now whipping against it). It moved to the Senate where it fell one vote short of passing. 

The version of the BBA that the House will voted on today was a concession by conservative Republicans who wanted to introduce a much stronger version that would require a 2/3rd majority to raise taxes in the future. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said earlier this week that he would "like to see us vote on the stronger BBA."

But GOP aides have said they settled on this version because it had a better chance of passing. According to Erica Elliot, who is a spokeswoman for House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), this version puts the ball in the Democrats court. "The American people overwhelmingly support a Balanced Budget to the Constitution and our Members chose to bring this bill to the floor because it has the best chance of passage," Elliot said, "We'll see if the Democrats support the will of their constituents."

The Senate is also required to vote on the BBA before the year ends, but that will not happen until after Thanksgiving.

The success of the supercommittee's negotiations on deficit reducation appears to hinge on taxes, as Democratic and Republican members of the 12-member panel struggled to find common ground on the issue of revenue.

Supercommittee Democrats and Republicans remained in their respective corners Thursday, as each side insisted they were waiting for the other to move. A familiar sticking point on Capitol Hill has left the committee deadlocked: taxes, taxes, taxes.

With six days to go until a Nov. 23rd deadline, Democrats and Republicans huddled behind closed doors to continue talks toward a deal that would achieve $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. Democrats met for about two hours in the Capitol this morning; Republicans met three times today, including a meeting between House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Democrats emerged from their meeting with a message to Republicans: we’re waiting to hear from you.

Sen. Patty Murray (WA), the Democratic co-chair, said her party has agreed to lower their demand for new revenue to a level acceptable to Republicans.

"The Democrats are in complete agreement. We have met their offer on revenue...I believe that we have opened a door to negotiations in these last final hours," Murray said.

Per Democratic aides, Sen. Murray offered to her Republican co-chair, Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, last week an offer that would achieve the mandated $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by way of $401 billion in new revenue and $876 billion in spending cuts, which includes $275 billion in health entitlement savings.

"I'm unaware of any offer or any idea from any Democrat that didn't include a minimum of a trillion dollars more in tax increases," Hensarling told reporters at the Capitol. "I'm unaware of another offer."

Under this particular Democratic plan, the Bush tax cuts would expire at the end of next year. The Republican proposal calls for an extension of Bush tax cuts with even lower rates. Therefore, Republicans argued today that Democrats were being disingenuous claiming they had met Republican revenue demands.

"There is no offer from the Democrats that meets our number," Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R) told reporters as he shuffled between meetings today.

He added: "I haven’t seen anything this week that’s new in any way...there was a piece of paper exchanged between a couple of the people but it is not a new offer."

In a sign that Democrats may be working off different pages, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said he was "surprised" Murray said Democrats had met Republican demands. He said the two sides were still negotiating.

"I believe that people need to put politics aside, put ideology aside, work in the best interests of the American people and hopefully we can get something done," Kerry said.

Hensarling tried to enforce the point of Democratic disunity. "Last I heard, the Democrats had not coalesced around a position," he said.

The supercommittee members say they plan to work throughout the weekend to produce an agreement. In anticipation of a potential failure of talks, both sides are now engaged in a furious effort to show they've produced offers and made concessions to the other side.

NBC's Frank Thorp contributed reporting.