Delegates or the Senate, and we assumed
they became law only to realize they had
been killed in the other house when we
were ready to rely upon them when deal-
ing with clients' problems. This failure of
communication is basic in the system.
There is practically no way to overcome it.
You have to have a chart with computer
buttons and all kinds of electronic gadgets
to keep up with legislation between the two
houses.
The bicameralists suggest—this is the
crucial part of their argument—that the
bicameral system is the basic way of kill-
ing hastily, ill-conceived legislation by a
cautious other house.
The way it works, however, is, cautious,
well-considered legislation is killed by a
hasty other house. The truth of that state-
ment is inherent in the way the system
operates because the cautious legislation
that one house puts through in the 60th
or 71st days of its session is generally dis-
posed of in the last ten days on the other
side. The statistics that we presented
showed that.
Instead of having your coffee poured
from the saucer to the cup, you are pouring
the coffee from the cup to the saucer. All
of the coffee in the cup is poured into the
saucer in the last few days of the session,
and I submit all of it does not get drunk
by the people of the State of Maryland.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I have a number of other people who indi-
cated a desire to speak under the controlled
time. But if the Chair could take some kind
of sense of the Committee of the Whole, I
think I could reserve the time remaining
for rebuttal at the end. Perhaps if the
people who have agreed to speak have no
objection, they might speak under the un-
controlled time segment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would be
disposed in view of the hour to continue the
debate with the uncontrolled time, but 1
do not believe that we could permit you
then to come back and have sole rebuttal,
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I was not sug-
gesting I might have sole rebuttal, but that
the Chairman of the Committee on the
Legislative Branch and myself might re-
serve an equal amount of time for rebuttal.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will pro-
ceed with uncontrolled time and allow each |
of you, at the end of the debate as to which
time is uncontrolled, shorter of the time,
that the two of you have remaining; I am
not sure which that is.
Are there any other delegates who de-
sire to speak either for or in opposition?
I think we should take first, delegates
speaking for the amendment. Delegate
Borom, do you wish to speak for the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE BOROM: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I call to your
attention that each speaker in this portion
of the debate is limited to five minutes.
DELEGATE BOROM: That is more
than anticipated, otherwise. As I listened
to some or our experienced legislators talk
about the way the system operates, and
conference committees, it occurred to me
the issue was probably not between bicam-
eralism and unicameralism, but tri, bi, and
uni. On the conference committee we have
the third level in the governmental system.
One of the reasons I am anxious to speak
is that earlier someone alluded to the ori-
gin of the unicameral system in Nebraska
and the way in which the distinguished
Mr. Norris succeeded in having this come
through. I would submit, and I think all
the former and present legislators would
agree, that many good things that have
come through any legislative body often
have been hidden. I think rather than be-
little Mr. Norris for the way he achieved
unicameralism in Nebraska, we should
commend his ingenuity. The people of Ne-
braska have not rejected unicameralism
after all these years. The advocates of bi-
cameralism are really grasping at straws
when they talk about reapportionment, and
the effect on the bicameral system. There is
no assurance whatever that reapportion-
ment will improve the quality of legislators
or will rid us of the hidden manner in
which much work gets done in the General
Assembly.
I would like to borrow from the Com-
mittee's Report the well used expression,
one cannot see the forest for the trees. I
think this is one of the problems. We talked
about the fact that the electorate does not
trust the General Assembly. They cannot
see the forest for the trees. Too many
people there, two bodies, too much good
legislation going down the drain in the
process—I think if we hang our hats on
these arguments, it will be a false hook.
I would further suggest that perhaps the |
