It is 261. Are you telling me that a good number of the 202 who voted against it then would have voted for it, so you would have had 261 votes? Where are you going to come up with these? You barely got 203 votes. It almost lost. It passed by one vote. And now you are telling me, ``They did not have the three-fifths requirements then. If they had the three-fifths requirement somehow, miraculously they would have gotten the other votes in order to do it when they voted against it at the time?'' They almost beat it. They almost beat it on a straight up or down vote: 203 to 202. And now you are telling me, ``Well, they did not have the three-fifths requirements. If they would have had the three-fifths requirement, namely that he had to get 261 votes then a big chunk of these 202 who voted against it then, to prevent it from happening, would have switched over and voted for it?'' Is that what the Senator is telling me? I cannot believe it.
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the validity of claims about voting patterns related to a legislative requirement.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
the majority of Americans agree that climate change needs to be addressed now--not 10 years from now or 100 years from now, but now.
I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Today, we are arguing about a proposed Department of Energy efficiency standard for stoves, not just gas stoves, but every sort of kitchen stove…
Thank you very much. And I appreciate you talking about the data, the importance of collecting information on where the shortages are.
I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 272, H.R. 1606; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 273, H.R. 3672. personal explanation





