It is designed so that Members of the Senate who under pressure from the administration or because of persuasion from Senator Byrd or whatever other reason, they want to vote against Senate Joint Resolution 41, the real thing, but they want to go back home and say, ``I voted for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.'' And so this gives them a way to cover themselves. If there was any real desire on the part of the majority leader or anyone to pass this, there would not have been a suggestion that we have to have 67 votes to adopt this amendment. I can never remember in now my 19th year in Congress anyone ever suggesting for any amendment you have to have 67 votes to pass it. The proponents would not have suggested that if they believed it was desirable to pass it.
Sen. Paul Simon: “It is designed so that Members of the Senate who under pressure from the administration or because of persuasion from…”
On the recordFebruary 24, 1994
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the motivations behind Senate Joint Resolution 41 and the requirement for 67 votes.
Share
More from Sen. Paul Simon
Apr 15, 2019
It ought to be a very rare thing. We can't just be an international Rambo wandering around doing whatever we want regardless of international law.
Oct 14, 2026
The offer of funding ... was a last-ditch effort to cover for an inadequate Canadian trade regime that has failed to create a viable market for the products manufactured at Hamilton Works.
Mar 1, 1994
Just in response to one item mentioned by my friend from Tennessee. He and I agree on Social Security. We differ on the Reid amendment. When he talks about 110 percent of debt versus GDP in 1945 after World War II, what that ignores is…





