I will tell the Senator. First of all, it boggles the imagination that we are hearing this argument from someone who voted against the 1993 deficit reduction package. All of the situation that the Senator is talking about would be far worse had the Senator prevailed on that vote. There are tough decisions to be made. Everyone recognizes that. Because they are tough to make it is very difficult to get a majority for them. What the Senator is doing is escalating the standard from a majority to a supermajority. So the Senator is making it even tougher to make the tough decisions, not easier. The Senator is putting more power into the hands of the minority to frustrate or to thwart the effort. Where I disagree with the Senator is, in his assumption, that all of these waivers will be granted in a time of crisis. If we go back through our history, it does not support the Senator. Historically, when we come up against these situations they are often very divisive and very controversial and action in the end is taken by a bare majority.
On the recordFebruary 16, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Debating the implications of supermajority requirements in legislative decision-making.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
Jun 21, 2023
Congress gave EPA this role more than 50 years ago under the Clean Air Act and reaffirmed that responsibility in 2005 under the Energy Policy Act.
Apr 18, 2023
I do also want to commend my colleague, Representative Blunt Rochester, for the work that she has been doing.
May 10, 2023
They want to be on the field of their democracy. They want to feel like they have some power within their own democracy.
Dec 4, 2024
I certainly support this legislation to pay tribute to the giant Elijah Cummings. I have so many memories of Elijah. The first memory I have is that we both represented Baltimore for many years together. I started to notice that he and I…





