WASHINGTON (AP) - In 1958, deep in the Cold War, President Eisenhower proposed a global ban on all nuclear weapons test explosions. He said it would make the world safer.

He didn't have many takers.

More than four decades later, winning ratification of a treaty to ban nuclear testing - a top Clinton administration priority - is still a hard sell. Indeed, President Clinton conceded on Monday that he doesn't have the votes needed for Senate ratification.

"I hope we can get them," he told reporters.

Despite repeated efforts by the big nuclear powers to limit the nuclear arms race-set in motion by the U.S. bombing of Japan in World War II - the issue hasn't been in the forefront of public attention during most of the 41 years since Eisenhower's proposal.

"When you ask people what's the most important thing they worry about, the test ban treaty is not on the top of the list," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. Still, he said, "when you lay out the arguments to the public, the public overwhelmingly supports the treaty."

The Senate later this week will take up a treaty that would carry out Eisenhower's vision - an international pact intended to halt or at least slow the development of nuclear weapons by banning further testing.

To date, only the United States has used nuclear weapons - the two atomic bombs that ended World War II in August 1945.

Supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty say it is crucial to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating. They say it would keep large countries with advanced nuclear weapons already in their arsenals, including Russia and China, from manufacturing even more threatening weapons.

And it would make it easier to rein in smaller nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan, and stop a dangerous regional arms race.

Supporters of the ban also argue it would lock in superiority achieved through more than 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests.

"Our experts have concluded that we don't need more tests to keep our own nuclear forces strong," Clinton said as he met with his national security team to plot strategy for next week's vote.

"Since we don't need nuclear tests, it is strongly in our interest to achieve agreement that can help prevent other countries like India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran and others from testing and deploying nuclear weapons."

Senate rejection could increase military pressure to resume testing, advocates also argue. The United States has not conducted a test since 1992.

A poll conducted in July for the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, a pro-test ban advocacy group, suggested that 82 percent of the American public supported such a treaty.

Opposition from Senate Republican leaders "puts them on the opposite side of public opinion and world opinion," asserted Daryl Kimball, director of the coalition.

But many Republicans see the pact as dangerous - and unverifiable.

Such a ban could raise doubts 10 or 15 years from now about the condition of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, perhaps tempting a dictator or terrorist to challenge the United States, suggested Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va.

"There can be no doubt about the credibility of that stockpile," Warner said Monday. His panel will hold three days of hearings on the treaty, beginning Tuesday.

In the three years since the U.S.-led drive for the test-ban treaty began, 154 nations have signed it, but only 47 have ratified it.

More importantly, of the 44 nations with nuclear capability that must ratify it for it to take effect, only 23 have done so. Only two of the world's seven declared nuclear powers - Britain and France have ratified it.

Russia, China, the United States, India and Pakistan have not. Neither has Israel, which has never acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons but is widely believed to posses them.

"The effect of this treaty would be to forever forbid the United States from testing its nuclear arsenal, while allowing the rogue nations of the world to proceed with their nuclear plans," said Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a strong opponent of the pact.

The pact "is dangerous and should be defeated," said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Opponents also cite the CIA's inability to verify low-level underground nuclear explosions in other countries. Twice last month, U.S. intelligence saw signs of activity in Russia that could have indicated secret testing. The CIA was unable to say with certainty what was happening.

Supporters contend the CIA's monitoring shortcomings give even more reason to ratify the pact.

But neither the administration nor Democratic Senate leaders are underestimating the difficulties in trying to muster the 67 votes needed two-thirds of the Senate to ratify the test ban treaty.

"I acknowledge we have a lot of work to do," White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said.