On the recordJune 7, 2013
I certainly do. I think that would make a big difference. If we had to vote on it, it would have a couple of effects. First of all, the fact that we would have to vote on it would have an impact on the executive branch of government whose job it is to implement laws that we pass. The executive branch of government would normally have a duty--a duty that we would be following up on not just in some amorphous oversight committee hearing context, but we would be exercising oversight in a very real way in the sense that we would have to vote on whether they had done something adequately within a specified period of time. There would be consequences, real consequences, if we were to refuse to exercise that vote. This vote would go through the normal process. It would be debated, discussed, and acted upon in both Houses of Congress and then submitted to the President for signature or veto and would therefore be wholly consistent with the presentment clause of the Constitution. Some have suggested this might be a bad idea because it would perhaps get held up through some procedural mechanism or another, but the way the amendment was written, that would not, in fact, be the effect. This would be a privileged motion through which it could come on the floor. It would go through the Senate on a 51-vote threshold and would therefore be able to move through quite quickly. That is why it is important for this kind of mechanism to be in a bill such as this.
