The United States Senate is one of the two bicameral chambers of the United States Congress, the other being the House of Representatives. First convened in 1789, the composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each state is represented by two senators, regardless of population, who serve staggered six-year terms.
The Senate has several advice and consent powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting to or confirming appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal executive officials, military officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers, as well as trial of federal officials impeached by the House. The Senate is widely considered both a more deliberative and more prestigious body than the House of Representatives, due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies, which historically led to a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere.
See also: Senate Archives
Members[]
- Senator Joe Vogler (I-AK)
- Senator Angelo W. Pastore (R-CT)
- Senator Bill McKay (D-MI)
- Senator David Wilson (R-OH)
- Senator Joseph Reynolds (D-WA)
- Senator Nate Stevens (R-VA)
- Senator Harold Windsor (D-NY)
- Senator John J. Barnette (D-MD)
- Senator Troy Hay (D-NV)
Hopper[]
The Hopper is where all proposed bills are stored. To create a bill, please create a page with the full text of that bill in the first main heading. The second heading should be titled action. The page should also use Template:Infobox U.S. Legislation.
Introduced Bills[]
- Anti-Censorship Bill, by Senator David Wilson (R-OH)
- Automatic Embargoes Bill, by Senator Angelo Pastore (R-CT)
- Stevens-Pastore Act, by Senator Nate Stevens (R-VA) and Senator Angelo Pastore (R-CT)
- Department of Education Establishment Act, by Senator John J. Barnette (D-MD)
Passed Bills[]
- Anti-Censorship Bill, by Senator David Wilson (R-OH)
Debate[]
Automatic Embargoes Bill[]
President Pro Tempore: The Senate will come to order to debate the Automatic Embargoes Bill of 1979. First, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Pastore, will be given the floor, followed by a call for co-sponsors, and then open debate.
Senator Pastore (R-CT): My fellow senators, this bill has extraordinary powers, and should only be used in extraordinary times. I myself believe such time has come. When we are to face an ever going war against the atheist, violent and intolerable threat that is communism, we cannot be held by formalities. I do understand that some terms of this bill may seem not democratic enough, but I urge you all to consider the toll of losing this war, and losing all of our liberties so hardly conquered. I believe there are several actions that, although not enough for a declaration of war, are sufficient to declare one nation unfriendly, and even an enemy, of ours. For example, when an ambassador is killed by extremists, I think of it as a violent action not against the person of the ambassador, but for whom he represents, the United States and its people. Punishment is rightfully required for such action, but the longer taken to act, the less powerful the punishment will be. The aim of this bill is to exactly end this time limitation, and allow quick responses to the enemies of our great nation that, in a coward act, don't have the guts to declare war. I have proposed types of such acts in this bill, but I grant some may disagree and I'm willing to withdraw those, and let a later legislation decide which ones could be included. So, for a quick response against the enemies of our nation, vote aye for this bill. Thank you for the time.
President Pro Tempore: I will now entertain debate and motions to be added by unanimous consent as a co-sponsor to this bill. In order for this bill to be voted upon, after rigorous debate, a motion for cloture must be made and seconded, followed by a 60% super majority vote of aye.
Senator Stevens (R-VA): I do not support this bill, and intend to vote against it (however, this is not a filibuster). For one thing, under this bill, refugees from embargoed nations would be unable to enter the United States. Second, I think it is unwise to default to the worst with all countries. There may be a country that we just want to embargo, but we do not need to automatically restrict immigration, make it a federal crime for a person to trade with that country, and stop arms sales for ten years afterwards. This is an unwise foreign policy move. The Cold War will not be won by stooping to the same lows as the USSR, rather by improving the United States to become better than the Soviet Union.
President Pro Tempore: Would the Gentleman from Virginia desire to amend this bill to make it more appealing? If so, he needs only specify the text he wishes to amend.
Senator Stevens (R-VA): I will just vote it down, not amend.
Senator Windsor (D-NY): I will not support such an unthinking and crude article of legislature. US Foreign Policy should be adaptable and fluid, to match every scenario in the best way. Such a bill would only lead to rash action, and would be disastrous for the global political climate. Only a weak nation solves all of it's problems through violence and aggression without a great deal of thought. Gentleman of the Senate, we are not that nation. The United States of America is the most powerful nation in the world. We are a country that leads the rest of the free world by example. Such a bill would force suffering and poverty upon the very innocents that we pledge every year to protect in the form of NATO and the United Nations, commitments that consume vast resources and budgetary priority. I would also urge my fellow Senator's to restrain themselves, to behave as educated and politically minded diplomats. As elected individuals, the trust of the American public weighs upon our shoulders. And yet, in the very introduction of this bill, my good man Senator Pastore goes so far as to reference the political tension between ourselves and the USSR as a 'war', and speaks of attempting to win said war. Such language in this hallowed hall is intolerable; as a representative of the United States, you risk causing offence to another nation, and only worsening relations we strive to maintain and contain. One would expect more from a spokesperson of the very nation that calls for peace and restrain, even in the political climate we struggle to stay afloat in and attempt to stay the tide of. I am not afraid of conflict or war in the name of liberty. That is to say, no more afraid than any other morally obliged and civilized US Citizen should be, for fear itself is natural and the absence of doubt in the presence of conflict is inhuman. No, I merely recognize it as a last resort, the final solution so to speak. This bill promotes violence as an everyday political tool, the 'first solution', to our everyday diplomatic issues. It is not only unwise, but also extraordinarily undemocratic. This entire nation is based upon democracy, yet in front of the very assembly established to protect fair governance, you state blindly, and I quote, "It may not seem democratic enough" and then go on to justify a bill that would be an offence to our founding fathers. To punish an entire nation for the actions of independent terrorists; does that seem 'democratic enough' to you? In God we trust is our motto. We are the representatives, the stewards, of peace on Earth, not the aggressors, the provocateurs. And with that gentleman, I close my primary argument for the objection of this bill.
On a legal note, the very nature of this Bill is contradictory. In its introduction, it states that "should a nation engage itself with violent actions against the United States, an embargo against it shall be enforced, with no need to be passed over the Congress or the President.". However, it later states that "To one type of act be considered indeed violent, it must be approved as Violent Act Against the United States and its People, with a 2/3 majority of the vote on both houses and consent of the President of the United States.". It is not possible to have an automatic embargo, that first requires permission from Congress and the Executive branch of the US Government. The terms of Section 2 act in opposition to the US Constitution, and so the Bill should be regarded as unlawful. As the ex-Attorney General of New York State, I advise the Senate that such an act could be a direct breach of the 14th Amendment, that states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. None shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". As the "people of the [violent] nation" in Section 2, Subsection 4, is not defined, it is open to abuse by any authority. One could consider it to be citizens of the aggressive nation, ex-citizens, and even those merely born in the nation, or related to those who were, in contradiction to the previously mentioned Amendment. In the case of Korematsu v United States of America over Executive Order No. 34, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the USA, due to the fact that it was during wartime, and specifically stating that the legality was assured for this reason only. This proposed act assumes emergency powers akin to Executive Order No. 34, without the exclusivity of a declaration of war, the only possible legal exception for ruling against the Constitution for the safety of the greater American people. Even currently, the Supreme Court is currently undergoing proceedings to overturn the ruling of this case, and that of the similar Hirabayashi v United States on the grounds of it being unlawful.
Senator McKay (D-MI): I think Senator Windsor has summed up my thoughts as well about this piece of legislation.
Senator Vogler (I-AK): I will not support this bill. Senator Windsor has summed up a majority of my thoughts as well.
Senator Pastore (R-CT): I would like, if the President Pro Tempore and my fellow Senators allow it, defend the bill from the remarks from Senator Stevens and Senator Windsor. First of all, this bill will not, and as Senator Windsor pointed out, cannot restrain the entry of refugees, nor expel American citizens or refugees from the embargoed nations. Rather, it stops the immigration of the ones without the American citizenship that have the citizenship from a nation considered violent against the United States without refugee requirement, although in my vision if that nation is violent, all their citizens could be eligible to refugee status. Also important, I never quoted a state of war between ourselves and the Soviet Union, which would be the honorable gentlemen be putting words on my mouth. Rather, I said communism is a threat to the values of our nation, and as such they are against the very principles we defend, and we could say both ideas, ours and the communist ones, are to be forever "in war". But Senator Windsor would call for diplomacy when that seems to have failed under President Carter. A violent revolution has taken place in Iran. The American ambassador has been killed by extremists. The Sandinistas have assumed power in Nicaragua, yet another communist nation in the Americas, and also during a democratic presidency. Although Senator Windsor seems willing to fight for our rights, his party doesn't seem to have the same wishes. It rather lets atheists and anti democratic rules to assume power across the world. I, for one, will not stand for such. And for that very reason I proposed automatic embargoes: for required actions to be taken.
I've also said that this bill would, what fellow Senator Windsor seems to have ignored from my speech, sacrifices some liberties to defend from the lack of any liberty. It proposes an extraordinary power, that should be only used in emergencies. I have not proposed violence to be used as the only diplomatic tool our nation has, but that it be known that it is indeed a diplomatic tool we do have, and must not be afraid to use, what President Carter and the democrats seems to.
On the topic of it being contraditory, I don't think so. It defines that a type of act can be considered violent. For example, if the government approves to make assassination of an ambassador as a violent act, every time a ambassador is killed, an embargo will start against the nation that committed such act. The requirement stated was the approval for a act to be considered violent. Once an act is deemed violent, no discussion will be required if such act happens. So if a nation x kills our ambassador, an embargo will start, not requiring any approval from the executive. But the government can, despite the act, withdraw the embargo, even if considered violent.
Due to the opposition to the bill itself, I'll propose to make the following changes: some modifications to clarify the confusion pointed by fellow Senator Windsor, and withdraw every violent act proposed in the law, and only make the possibility of an act to be considered violent in the future, in another future bill by any other congressmen. Also, I'll consult with the rest of the Republican party about the support of the bill, and I may myself withdraw the bill. I beg you all to really consider this bill, and the changes I've proposed. Thank you for the time.
Senator Windsor (D-NY): Alas the furious and destructive natural quirk that one assumes when criticized dominates the hall. Firstly, could I start by suggesting that the word is 'contradictory' not contraditory'. It stems from the noun contradict, and no other pronunciation is acceptable in this hallowed hall. As representatives of the American people, advocates of education and learning, we can hardly squander the very right that our ancestors and forefathers have worked so hard to establish (Sorry, I know you may regard spelling as non-consequential, but this is a political simulation game and so your speech must be taken at face value. Whilst your spelling of committed is incorrect (it is not commited), phonetically it is the same so cannot be picked up on as there is no difference when hearing it. I now realize English is not your first language, so disregard it, but it is a valid point for those of you who speak it domestically). Perhaps I was wrong over the contradictory status of the bill, but that only goes to show its lack of clarity and cohesion. Even as ex-Attorney General of New York, I was confused and at loss. But all good men accept their mistakes, so I am pleased that you, Senator Pastore, have pledged to this Senate to rectify it.
However, you slyly omitted discussing the majority of the illegality of the bill, the largest concern of your opponents, with whom I may be included. In the future, Senator, I would refrain from lying to the transcripts. You focused only on citizens of the nation deemed violent, not on my other queries. Even then, as I referenced using current legal questions, the bill could not be authorized by the Supreme Court. Only an Executive Order could come close, and even then it would quite probably be declared void. But worst of all, you pretend that the word 'war' can be bandied around by representatives of a nature, in public session, as a turn of the tongue, a saying, a word to be trifled with. Unacceptable gentleman, UNACCEPTABLE!
But now my fellow Senators, comes the stupidity of the affair. A refugee, according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees, of which we are a signatory, is a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. We are bound by international law to accept at least some of them. Anyone defined as a refugee cannot, according to the UN, be rejected en masse due to their nation of birth or occupancy, or for any other reason. And yet, Senator Pastore proposes exactly the opposite: he contradicts (que laugh) the very laws we are bound to.
OOC Senator Pastore: I would like to point out that the last paragraph, about the refugees, may have come from a misspelling. You may or may not know that English is not my mother language, and so several words have almost the same writing but small differences and that leads me to error. When I wrote ellegible I meant Eligible, and not Illegible, as you have corrected in my speech. I myself make the most to have a correct spelling both in Portuguese and English, although it isn't always at my reach. I do not mind the correction made as part of the speech, no doubt that can, and should, be used. Yet, I just wished to inform about that confusion that seems to have happened, and that may have started from the misspelling leading to a wrong correction.
OOC Senator Windsor: Of course, I am sorry for my mistake. It is great that you can enunciate yourself so well in a second language, I am sorry for being nit picky. I will try not to correct the word to the wrong one in the future! Please understand I do not correct them out of spite, but merely a compulsive and somewhat obsessive tendency to do so. In the future, I will not attack you via the game for spelling errors, though the same does not apply for those for whom American English is their first language. English and American English spellings are both to be regarded as acceptable by moi, so as to avoid confusion over Americanized spellings of English words.
Stevens-Pastore Act[]
President Pro Tempore: The Senate will come to order to debate the Stevens-Pastore Act. First, the sponsors of the bill, Senators Stevens and Pastore, will be given the floor, followed by a call for co-sponsors, and then open debate.
Senator Stevens (R-VA): Thank you to the President Pro Tempore, and to Senator Pastore for co-authoring this bill. The Stevens-Pastore Act is a necessary step to have more transparency in the American system of government. The bill will require congressional lobbyists to register. This will make it easier for future regulation of lobbying, but will not necessarily require additional regulation. The main goal of this bill is to require increased governmental transparency, and to allow a fair system for the people. This bill will allow the people to have access to a record of all lobbyists, which will allow the voters to hae access to more information which they can take into account in their voting. In a greater sense, this bill stands for government transparency in general and the right of the people to government information. And increasing the right of the people to access information and to have a transparent government is what separates America from its Communist adversaries.
President Pro Tempore: I will now entertain debate and motions to be added by unanimous consent as a co-sponsor to this bill. In order for this bill to be voted upon, after rigorous debate, a motion for cloture must be made and seconded, followed by a 60% super majority vote of aye.
Senator Pastore (R-CT): As a co-author of this bill, I'd like to endorse the speech of Senator Stevens. This bill has in its objectives nothing but the greater good of the American people. The possibility of checking lobbyists should be a right. The liberty should be ever expanded, when possible. If someone is elected by popular vote, it's only fair that the ones that elected see who's trying to influence him, and may show their opinions over that influence. Information, truthfull information, is indeed what makes us different than the communist nations. The people, with information, is able to freely choose. So, I'll vote for this bill, and hope my fellow senators also vote for this bill, since it has no bad side for the American people nor the states.
Senator Wilson (R-OH): I will vote in support of this bill. Too often the officials in our government are granted unreasonable amounts of power and the citizens of this country become rightfully concerned about what type of actions these officials are engaging in. By legalizing this bill, the people of the United States will be able to be aware of any potentially nefarious deeds that government officials are engaging in, allowing them to make the right choices about who to keep in power and who to eliminate from the government. The citizens of this country are not mere puppets of the government, we deserve not to be in the dark.
Senator Windsor (D-NY): I will support this bill, to end the perverse and unjust corruption among the hierarchy of Congress. As leaders of the free world, what right have we to disclosure and corruption?
Senator Stevens (R-VA): I now motion for cloture.
President Pro Tempore: Motion for cloture is recognized. Senators, please vote Aye or Nay.
Senator Wilson (R-OH): Aye
Senator Pastore (R-CT): Aye.
Senator Barnette (D-MD): Aye.
Senator Vogler (I-AK): Aye.
Senator Reynolds (D-WA): Aye
Senator Windsor (D-NY): Aye
Senator Stevens (R-VA): Aye
President Pro Tempore: Cloture having been reached by a 3/5 majority, we will now move into final voting procedures. Senators, please indicate Aye or Nay.
Senator Howard (R-FL): Aye
Senator Jackson (R-TX): Aye
Senator Wilson (R-OH): Aye
Senator McKay (D-MI): Aye
Senator Windsor: Aye
Senator Stevens (R-VA): Aye
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
