Talk Elections

Sponsor: Napoleon

Ah, remember when we used to talk about the Iraq war and Imperialism in the same thread. Those certainly were the days, weren't they? I trust this nostalgic Libertasian experience shall be of the upmost fun. ;)

I don't think I need to tell Senators that this is a terrible bill.  It would radically damage our foreign policy; plunge Iraq and Afghanistan into chaos, and allow Gadaffi to regain power in Libya, ending all hope for regime change.  Let the foreign policy and defense experts advising the President handle troop numbers, so that we don't reflexively commit very serious damage.  The President's recently announced plan shows progress is being made; let us go at that pace.

LOL

I urge the Senate to reject this dangerous bill and stay the course with the plan President Polnut has put into place.

A regime change is not our job. We are not the world police; we cannot afford to be. Our actions overseas, for every drop of Atlasian or foreign blood spilled, are sowing the seeds of hatred, leading to an expanded terrorist network. The international murderers who wish to see us dead have a rallying cry: our unwanted presence. Approaching a decade in Afghanistan and spreading our forces thin elsewhere, we daemonstrate to more powerful, more dangerous nations that we cannot even complete the job in small and undeveloped nations.

You make such compelling arguments, Senator.

This bill is ridiculous and hackish to the point of reminding (as Yankee said) good old Libertas. It doesn't deserve more comments.

Motion to table

A vote is open on the Motion to Table the "End to Imperialism Act". Senator's please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

If anyone wonders why no one cares about foreign policy, perhaps it is because we don't even allow other points of view to be debated.

Nay

Nay, maybe we could get some amendments on it?

Yes, don't table this bill.  We should debate the bill, see that it is a disastrous piece of legislation, and reject it.  But, we should allow Napoleon to present his arguments.


Frankly, given the plan the President put through, I don't think we need amendments.  I think we should follow the President's plan.

Do we have troops still stationed in Korea and Germany? if so I would like to have them added to the bill as well once the table vote is over.

*Waits for people to start using the term "isolationist" incorrectly.

nay.

nay

Aye

Their desire to see us dead will not change if we bow down to their wishes.

Senators supporting the motion: Antonio, Duke
Senators opposed: Napoleon, Jbrase, Fuzzleton, bgwah, Snowguy

The motion to table the bill has failed. Debate resumes.

I would support an amended form of this bill that lengthened the withdrawal period to a more realistic amount.  I believe democratic movements have to be home-grown.. and while I understand the bombings in Libya are meant to try and stop a pathetic dictator from bombing his own people, arming the opposition generally hasn't worked out very well for us.

As far as Afghanistan and Iraq... at this point, they will get the government they deserve.  I am optimistic for Iraq.. not so much for Afghanistan.

Their ability to will be hindered. Especially if you count troops as part of that "us", which I do.

Snowguy, is 60 days good enough?

I think 90 days would be appropriate.  That's 3 months... that gives 6 weeks for preparation and 6 weeks for execution.

I can live with that. Please amend 30 to 90.

^ This.

*dragged from Senate floor*

At least explain how it's dangerous... isn't ten years in Afghanistan enough?

Absolutely, but I don't support an immediate 30-day withdrawal (I see it's been changed to 90 now, which isn't quite as bad). I think it's important for the Senate to be supportive of President Polnut and not contradict the plan he has already laid out for Atlasia.

I see I made the wrong vote in the last election.

Of course everything is just fine with Iraq and Afghanistan ::)

When will some people learn that such things don't fo good, just a hard? 

Are the situations in these two countries in better shape than they are in real life? Would it be dangerous to pull out early?

I will say I'm totally opposed to closing all our overseas bases in places like Germany and other parts of Europe and Asia. No need for us to go back into isolationism.

I'm not sure but I believe Atlasia withdrew most of its military from mainland Europe several years ago. Might be wrong on that though.

Allow me to interject into this debate, if I may. Atlasian forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq, yes, but it should be a gradual phase-out so we don't leave a sudden power vacuum that would result from a needlessly strict withdrawal timetable. Personally I believe the Presideny has the right idea here.

Coming from the most unsuccessful Senatorial candidate in history, my comments may not mean anything, but I would like to add a few thoughts.  I do believe that this debate is worth having.  Then, I hope, the Senate will vote against this bill.

First, I don't think the Senate has the power to withdraw troops.  Polnut is the Commander in Chief and he, alone, has the power of deployment (especially when you are talking about pre-positioned bases in Europe and Asia).  Not to give any ideas, but I think the only legal avenue for the Senate would be to stop funding.  Could be wrong, but that is just off the top of my head.

Second, very ill-defined bill.  What are "troops?"  If you mean members of the armed services, then we would have to withdraw the Marines guarding the embassies in those two countries.  While I am not a fan of the State Department guys I have met, and would get a little joy out of the pucker factor they would experience without any military protection, you can't do that to them.  It makes too high an unprotected target.

So do you mean combat troops?  What about special forces training and advising the militaries of those countries.  If they are to survive, you want to make sure their militaries are prepared.  What about liaison and ground control personnel?  You would want to keep a couple in country so that in time of emergency, we could quickly use bases there.  See our troops in Iceland, Diego Garcia, Japan, etc.

Lastly, I don't think we have active military "in' Libya.  I believe from what I know from my friends involved in that area, the guys on the ground are "civilians."  The British I believe have the SAS on the ground.  Most of the work has been done from the air.

Those are a few structural problems I see.  I also do not believe wholesale withdrawl from the international community is a good idea.  It weakens our position and limits our ability to be involved when we have to.

Now I will go back to losing my next election.

The senate has the ability to declare war and also the power of the purse.  We can essentially tie the president's hands by completely defunding any troop involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

If the President wants to get into a fight over who gets to decide when and where we conduct wars, I think he'll find that the senate can make it very difficult to enact "tough guy" foreign policy..

So we agree.  The Senate can only defund.  Thus, the statute would have to be amended.  I still don't support it (for whatever that matters) but that would be the only legal way to do it.

My other concerns still stand.

Yes.  I think the bill should be amended to make it more constitutional.  I also think Napoleon should be the one to amend it.

Sorry. Hit post before the rest of my thought.  Was editing it, then saw your post.

How has this been done in the past?

one possibility might be to decrease funding for Afghanistan and Iraq operations over time while cutting off funding for weapons in Libya.

We can pass this. I think that my modified version (tomorrow, people!) will get six votes.

No matter what, the final vote will be important. The people deserve to know where their representatives stand on this critical issue. We can identify the real Atlasian left.

Does this mean I become an honorary leftist if I vote aye? :P

You seem reasonable to me, if not economically left-wing. :P

I want to make the Administration's view on this clear...

I want our troops out of harms way, where we disagree, is how to go about it.

Personally, I believe the Afghanistan conflict was handled abominably, largely due to unnecessary war in Iraq - but as President, and even moreso as Commander-in-Chief, I have a deep responsibility that goes beyond what I want to do. As an Atlasian, I want all of them home and out of harm's way yesterday, but as president and a world leader who believes in responsible government, I do not have that luxury.

As a country with forces on the ground we do have a responsibility to make sure the transition to local forces is a smooth as possible, while many claim this is lost cause already, I cannot image what it will make us look like if we just up and leave, and a massive power vacuum ensues.

Support or opposition to the War is not the issue now, it's about the right way to leave.

I'm prepared fully to work with the Senate to bring this joint goal about and believe me, I understand the frustration, I am prepared to work with you as long as you are equally prepared to work with me.

I take it the bill has been amended to 90 days now, which is good. I'm not sure if I'll support the bill, but 30 days is nuts.

If I had been elected, I could easily do so.  You probably would not agree with it, but I truly do believe in the pre-positioning of bases for purposes of force projection.  In many cases, these "bases" are really just American personnel stationed at foreign bases.  For example, in the case of Australia, I believe the last count by DOD put our military presence there at about 115-120 (or in that neighborhood, unless of course Atlasia drastically increased troops there for some reason, but I could not find that).  Most of these troops are rear-echelon support.  If I am not mistaken, their primary purpose as well as the five or 10 in New Zealand is to administer pre-positioned equipment stationed there for joint exercises, satellite tracking, and in the case of the Navy and Air Force, supplying and serving the scientific outposts in Antartica.  For each of these reasons, I believe that the placement of troops in the region is well reasoned and necessary.

I beleive similar arguments could be realistically made for the other deployments you might have issue with.  Not all of them, but most.

Napoleon, please don't insinuate that I am not a real member of the Left because of my position.  It is a foolish way to identify someone.

I love the litmus tests being proposed in the Senate! I love it!

Still discussing this with President Polnut.

Just to officialize this, and because I am uncomfortable doing this any other way, Senators have 24 hours to object starting on the 23rd at 8:17 pm and ending on the 24th at 8:17 pm. The bill has thenceforth been amended. Senators have 72 hours to object to this dereliction of the OSPR (Not really, since Snowguy used to let sponsor amendments through without any procedure at all). :P

 

I think we should call this to a vote ASAP... there is no reason to amend it into something that is nothing like the original bill.

With the 90 day time frame, I will support it.  Let's have our combat troops home to take their kids trick-or-treating.

I will make these minor tweaks then. I want to see a final vote to determine where the Senate stands.

Amendment

Funding for combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 90 days following passage.

If this Bill passes as is proposed - it will not receive White House support.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the sponsor originated Amendment

^^^^

Final vote time I guess.

Final votes are out of order when an amendment is under consideration.

I object on the grounds that combat troops in Libya were never authorized by the Senate in the first place, so "no longer authorized" is inaccurate.

I tried searching on the wiki and could not find it. Last night I asked the Presidential about this but he hasn't yet responses.

You may be thinking of Senator Rowan's "Protect Libya Citizens Act," which was tabled. So I think Shua is correct when he says the Senate never authorized action in Libya. You may be thinking of the SoEA's actions? (link: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=133144.msg2862561#msg2862561)

I did say that I was unavailable over the weekend... I would like some advice on this matter.

True enough we can resume when you return.

Wait, what is it that's the contention about what I said? It's clear the Senate never authorized any action in Libya. The previous and current administration have been acting without any Senate authorization or consultation. There's never been any question that's what they've been doing.

How is it legal if that is true?

It's not.  Perhaps we should drag the SoEA in here to explain.  If he is engaging in unauthorized activities, he should stop immediately.  If the president acts to try and authorize such activity, I'd recommend we defund any such activities ASAP.  If he wants to pay for it with milk and honey and unicorn jizz, he can go ahead and try.

The President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, authorized Atlasian troops to be part of NATO operations in Libya several months ago.  The Atlasian troops in Libya now are NATO soldiers; this is not an Atlasian military expedition.  The Senate, by keeping Atlasia in NATO, has acquiesced to Atlasian troops being used in NATO military ventures.

I was told these aren't troops but civilians.

You misread what I said - I said that I changed the mission from a military combat one to one of civilian protection and military intelligence and logistical support.

What's to stop the senate from reducing any funds given to NATO in order to make it impossible to keep sending Atlasian troops to Libya under the guise of international cooperation?

This bill has gone nowhere in days.  I'm tempted to call it to a vote, but I think I'll let Napoleon do that.

Keep in mind that if the bill passes as written and your veto is overridden, all troops from Libya will have to be withdrawn because no funding will be in place for them... even if it is first appropriated to NATO.

I have offered Napoleon what I think is a fair compromise - but he has not made those details public yet.

Well, I'd hope he makes them public ASAP.  As I already said, I won't support something that is too watered down and promotes further warmongering.

The bill as it stands now would pass the senate.  With minor changes, we would override your veto.

As I said - I respect the right of the Senate to make these determinations - but I believe anything too precipitous would be a mistake.

I have not decided how to proceed as of now. I am weighing a few options

A mistake?  Afghanistan will be an endless moneypit for eternity due almost completely to geography.  We will never "win" there by employing force.  Afghanistan should really be split into several small semi-autonomous regions that are self governing.  But that won't be accomplished with Atlasian money or Atlasian troops.

We are more than ready to withdraw from Iraq.  I believe they can sustain democracy.. though they, too, should probably be divided into 3 semi-autonomous regions with self government.  The religious and cultural divides among the people there are too rigid to force them together under a weak democratic government.  By leaving the bulk of the decisions to regional governments elected by like minded people, things will run much more smoothly.

As far as Libya goes... just because the international community agrees to bombing the hell out of people, doesn't make it right.  I support the rebels in removing the tyrannical government from power... but that's all I believe I can and should do.. is give them moral support.  Targeted trade/economic sanctions and diplomacy should be the viable alternative.

My new proposal is to have more than 50% of all combat troops home by April

60% home from Iraq by 31 December - all troops (including support troops) out by June
40% back from Afghanistan by 31 December - up to 65% by April

As for Libya - people really have missed that I ordered that Atlasian forces were to act ONLY to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in rebel-held areas. So troop numbers have dropped already - 60% will be home by 1 November - my expectation is that our forces for civilian defense as well as intelligence and logistical support would be roughly 25% of our original deployment and we can get that done by 1 November also.

In spite of my personal feelings on these conflicts, I think this is a reasonable compromise.

so we are no longer directly supporting the rebels in Libya?

Well... we are protecting civilians in rebel-held areas.

Also, Atlasia recognizes the NTC as the official government of Libya.

I want assurance that goal is not being used carte blanche for arming the rebels or targeting the current regime.

Are we moving forward with this bill?

Also.. why is the original post not updated to reflect the passed amendments?  I'm pretty sure the bill should indicate withdrawing funds from troop involvement, and not simple withdrawl of troops.

I have never updated OPs, save for the subject line in the OP to change the heading of the thread. As such why are you suprised to not see it so? :P

Because the debate carried over to next page, I forgot to announce that the amendment had passed. Normally when I make such a declaration of passage, I post the updated text.

I always thought you did... which is why I always did.  It wouldn't hurt :P  I mean.. it's not like you're overworked or anything :P

I never have. Never noticed, BK, MJ, or MB doing it, but I may be wrong on one or two of them.

I considered it, since you did it, but I figured it might encourage Senators to follow the threads more closely if I didn't.

I did keep your improvements to the Noticeboard though, as well as the practice of putting "SENATE BILL:" in front of bill titles in the subject line. Just in case you hadn't noticed. :P

Okay, I now see what I did and why.

The reason I didn't move forward before, was because of shua's objection to the amendment on the grounds of the lack of authorization for the Libyan intervention, and I didn't want to start a vote on an amendment that seem likely to be withdrawn/modified, at the time.

The last word from the sponsor of this amendment and the underlying bill was that he was "weighing options".


So forgot everything I said yesterday on this bill procedure wise and in terms of Senate procedure. :P

A MORE ACCURATE STATUS OF THE BILL:


Pending Amendments
Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Objection: Yes (shua)

Is there to be a correction of the terminology regarding Libya or do we begin a vote on the current text of Amendment 44:13?

I'd hate to start a vote and then be in need of stopping it like that Amendment on the Smoking bill I think was (Whichever one BK stopped by declaring it frivolous and impractical).

Napoleon? I need a response on that.

I'm not going to comment on the merits of shua's argument itself because it doesn't matter in the context here; the amendment is fine as-is. Even if one accepts the premise that our current military engagement in Libya was conducted without the implicit authorization of the Senate, it's irrelevant to the wording of the bill. The funding for the Atlasian military units currently engaged in Libya is authorized by the Senate (along with funding for every other unit in the armed forces). The amendment as worded isn't presuming that the Senate has authorized the combat troops' actions at all.

Good point, the use of the word "authorized" refers to the funding for such actions, not the authorization of the action itself.

I'll remove my objection and let the amendment go forward. However we still need to establish whether we have in Libya what can be considered "combat troops" for purposes of this bill.

It would probably be good to define "combat troops" in the bill, perhaps something like, "Atlasian military units currently engaged in combat operations" or something?

I think the general sense of the term is troops deployed for the purpose of combat operations. Based on what the President said about the current mission in Libya, it sounds like there's no reason to authorize any combat troops there for even the next 90 days.

Considering that the only objection raised during that 24 hours has been removed, the amendment 44:13 is considered to have passed:

Due to the different circumstances in each country, I submit the following amendment:

End to Imperialism Act
Funding for combat troops in Libya, and transfer of weapons to combatants there, shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 30 days following passage.
Funding for combat troops in Iraq shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 60 days following passage.
Funding for combat troops in Afghanistan shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective 120 days following passage.

Sponsor Feedback: Pending

Accepted as friendly.

Senators have 24 hours to object to this amendment.

The amendment has passed.


Are we done here?

I'm disappointed by the lack of engagement with the White House on this matter over the last fortnight - I have offered considerable concessions.

If it passes in it's current form, I will be vetoing it - but I will offer a new proposal with combines strict withdrawal dates and funding deadlines.

If the Senate wishes to override my veto without even entering into functional negotiations with the White House, they're of course within their rights, but I don't think it really helps anyone's cause

No responses by tomorrow will lead to a final vote being initiated. :P

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

I understand that there are many who have long-held views about these conflicts that are now able to be expressed and acted on - but whether I think these conflicts are good/bad just/unjust etc etc is not important. My responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and a coalition leader is to do what I must do.

I believe I have given a lot of ground here but I cannot do more without acting irresponsibly.

Libya: I have already scaled back our involvement, and the further draw-down will be logistically the easiest - which is why we can withdraw here with the most speed.

Iraq: the process of exchanging the authority to the Iraq forces is proceeding well - there remains some pockets which will remain in coalition hands. 31 January is the earliest we can withdraw without causing any destabilisation.

Afghanistan: this is a messy military and political situation. Our transfer to local forces will take longer here, this is a cold hard reality that I really hope the Senate will appreciate.


 
My administration has outlined a withdrawal policy from the very early days of my Presidency, I have been prepared to work with the Senate to develop a workable compromise. I am willing to use my veto because I believe the current proposal is militarily reckless, which we are not.

This gets virtually all of our combat troops out of these conflicts in less than 9 months, this is by modern standards, a very rapid draw-down.

I really hope that the Senate will look again at the proposals before you, and makes a determination of what is actually achievable and will not result in massive power vacuums.

I was referring to the sponsor, or atleast a Senator, just in case you thought I was prodding you Mr. President. ;)


As it stands right now, I think the President has a good handle on a way to responsibly draw the conflicts to a close and thus at this point, I plan to vote no on the bill and to uphold a veto if necessary.

I've already stated that I believe 90 days was enough time to get our troops out of there.  There is no reason to be all "moderate hero" about this.  Do you really think keeping them there until next June is going to make a bit of difference? 

If you were arguing that it will take that long simply to get the troops out, I could understand... but you're not.  You're just picking dates and times that are arbitrarily longer than what the sponsor of the bill offered because you have Obama Fever.  You can't/won't take sudden actions because that could maybe be seen as rash.  You're afraid to take those risks... so instead you push for a compromise that nobody likes at all.

When this bill comes to a vote, I will vote aye.  And when you veto it, Mr. President, I will vote to override your veto.

It's well past the time that Atlasian troops need to come home.  Not because we're defeated or we're losers or anything... but because we need to bring them home and focus on defending ourselves while ending the bottomless moneypit that "defense" has been.  We've screwed with enough peoples' lives and it should stop ASAP.

Sadly, you've completely misjudged my intentions.

I had a timetable in place before the Senator's Bill was before the Senate - I tried to negotiate with the Sponsor to find a compromise position, unfortunately the Senator has not made the results of those negotiations part of these discussions.

I'm not interested in taking risks with our troops, the time lines I have offered are based on the situations in each of the theatres and military advice.

You are entitled to vote to override my veto should I have to use it.

For what it's worth, I do agree that we shouldn't stick to an arbitrary timeline but should rather focus on an exit strategy that ends these costly military ventures without leaving a quagmire in our wake. I trust that the President is acting under the best advice of Atlasia's military commanders (i.e., the GM) :)

Senator, you have (hopefully accidentally) completely ignored what I've been saying.  For us to withdraw now, hastily, would do far more damage to the people we are trying to help than following the President's timeline.  Withdrawing just to withdraw, which is what you and Senator Napoleon are arguing for, is dangerous.  It doesn't give the people left time to prepare themselves; it will lead to the collapse of anti-Gaddafi resistance in Libya, it will strengthen the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and will fuel instability in Iraq.  These are all outcomes that must be avoided, and so this bill must be defeated, and the President's timeline must be the absolute shortest we can have this process take.

The President consulted all the top foreign policy and military advisers before making his decision (I know, I was there).  His explanation is solid, and backed up by fact.  It appears, Senator, you are choosing to follow your own instincts as opposed to expert advice, and that is a mistake - one which I hope the Senate will not follow.

10 years in Afghanistan was plenty of time to affect change.  You've made it clear in your statements that we should be there "until the job is done"... unfortunately, you cannot explain what job it is that needs to "get done"... only that it is some far off, pie in the sky goal that will require lots more money and troops to achieve.

We should not have gotten involved with Libya.  While I vehemently oppose Ghadaffi and his murdering of his own people, I do not believe any good will come from our supporting the rebels.  At the very best, it will create yet another nation completely dependent on us for long term survival, and at the worst, sour those people and turn them against us.  This has been tried so many times before that you'd think the military establishment would get it through their thick skulls... but alas, they do not.

As far as Iraq is concerned:  It is time they carried their own water.  I believe they can do it.  There is no reason to drag things out any longer there.


I'm not "acting with my instincts" here.  And I'm not endangering the troops by bringing them home in a timely manner.  I'm only endangering the warmongers' ability to keep waging pointless wars and the profit margin of defense contractors.  And I have a feeling that is what scares this administration most.

We have had responses from several people and it doesn't appear that any further movement will be engaged in regarding modifications or compromise. Therefore, shall I bring this to a vote or is there more going on here then meets the eye?

Unfortunately Senator, you've yet again misjudged this Administration's priorities.

On Libya, I had the same general thoughts as you. It was not our job to fight their war for them, a point I made during the speech in which I first brought up a withdrawal from all of these conflicts, again, before this Bill appeared. We had a small contingent who were not part of the command structure. I ordered the combat troops to withdraw and to serve only as a peacekeeping force in the Benghazi itself. Our force is small in number, and it will be the first to be fully withdrawn, because it can be easily withdrawn.

On Iraq, yet again, the point is missed, but we will have almost 70% of our troops out by November, with a slow trickle as training is increased and command handed over to the Iraqi forces until January - this is not a slow withdrawal - this is a very rapid withdrawal.

On Afghanistan, this is the one over which we seem to have the greatest disagreement. But it is the one where the situation is the most precarious, so yes, we do have to take longer to extricate ourselves - I won't apologise for doing what I feel is the right thing to do.

I do understand the Senator's points, I have been prepared to give a lot more ground than my advisers have wanted me to, but because I hoped that the Senate was interested in a constructive dialogue - I pushed the military to give me the most swift but militarily responsible dates for exits.

The problem now is that some Senators are just repeating the same points over and over about how 10years in Afghanistan is too long - I completely agree, which is why I highlighted withdrawal in my first foreign policy speech as president  - which is why I have been prepared to work with the Senate to get this done... but get it done properly. Which is why I have proposed a time line for both withdrawal AND for the cessation of funding.

I want our troops out, but I don't want to create situation that could necessitate them being sent back at some point in the future.


In that end, I think the Senate should just vote on it let what will be, be.

The goal in Afghanistan is creating a stable nation that can defend itself, as well as eliminating the Taliban, our mortal foe.  And yes, that goal will take some time.  But it's imperative that we achieve that goal.


The Libyan people want Gaddafi gone.  We are strengthening the only viable resistance to him.  To leave now would be giving the middle finger to those who hoped we could help them.


We're not asking for years; we're asking 5 months.  There's a difference.


A ridiculous and, frankly, insulting comment.

A ridiculous and, frankly, insulting comment.
[/quote]

As completely worthless as my opinion might be, I felt the need to chime in.  I served (but before the war), and most of my friends have as well (both before and during), a few who never came back.  I know this was not intended, but I did find it a little insulting.  Snowguy, you have my respect, although we probably rarely agree on an issue.  I know you did not mean it that way, but "warmonger" is right up there with some terms that are really insulting to those in uniform.  I get your point, and agree with you on some of your points, although I disagree with the manner.  In that regard I support the President in his withdrawl scheme, although it is quicker than I would like.  I just felt you should know, and I hope you understand that I am not attacking you, just asking you to consider this in the future.  And Ben, you are my hero...although I don't think he meant to be insulting.

To my mind immediate withdrawal form Libya is crucial so we do not get dragged into another long occupation. For me, that's non-negotiable. Iraq and Afghanistan on the other hand, we have already made such an impact and entangled in relationships there, I recognize leaving is a bit more tricky. Iraq is mostly stabilized though so I think we can leave there very soon as well. At this point, I don't see the need for retaining combat troops in Iraq any more than a couple months.
Yes, Afghanistan is the tricky one, though even there it seems like our combat troops have done all they can. I understand the need for an orderly withdrawal and transfer of power, but I don't understand exactly what it is to be accomplished by staying in Afghanistan through next spring. Is there something particular about June?

Really behind all this timetable talk is a question of strategy. If we had a credible strategy for winning the peace, I'd consider allowing our armed service heroes to stay a bit longer to achieve it. But it seems more and more that our best strategy is not going to be mainly a military one. If there's something we can accomplish there in the next year with our combat troops that we haven't already, I'm not sure what it is.

My comment about warmongers was not in any way an insult to the troops, and to be honest I'm surprised anyone would see it as such.  The SOEA clearly wants endless war policing the world and forcing other nations to bend to our will in the classic neocon way.  Shua brings up an excellent question that has yet to be answered... What will the extra six months bring to the table?  I'm aware that the "military" advisors think the presidents compromise is too short... But any compromise to them that doesn't allow endless funding and throwing the lives of our young men and women away for unachievable objectives is not enough.

I've no doubt that in the end, the moderate hero neocons will win out and we'll consign countless more Atlasian troops to death in the quest to achieve an unachievable objective against a vague and I'll defined enemy.  But again, Halliburton will be elated!

Yelnoc:  I also have many friends serving, including two that are in Afghanistan right now.  I still think the top brass are warmongers who glorify war and use our chicken hawk politicians to get their way.  Im sorry if I've offended you...but nothing offends me more than sending good men to die for nothing.

Stop calling yourselves experts.

It is clear the Senate will have to act on its own for this.

Yes, you've made it quite clear that you and your cronies will do whatever possible to destroy the good work Atlasia has done and is trying to do, in order to satisfy some wrongheaded grudge.

Are you implying that war is good for the world?

Grudge?  I have nothing against you or Polnut, Ben.  I just don't agree with you on foreign policy.  I think you're the one turning this into some kind of personal grudge.

You think warring is good for Atlasia and good for the rest of the world.  I think it's expensive and unnecessarily deadly.  We have international organizations that can handle peacekeeping and a thing called diplomacy.  If our "enemies" don't want to talk it out, then I think Atlasia can easily make a case to international bodies that these people are a threat and action should be taken... at an international level.  And diplomatic routes should always be exhausted first.. including military and economic sanctions on an international scale that cripples our "enemy" governments' ability to stay in power.

oh, and I was referring to Junkie in my previous post.. not Yelnoc.  Sorry about that, Junkie.

I want to stress that this is NOT personal, this is a policy difference - although I do reject the suggestions that my decision is being manipulated by arms manufacturers et al.

I know that there are Senators for whom my withdrawal plan will never be swift enough, I really have made efforts to do the right thing across the board. It's a very difficult balance to strike, and those considerations include the political situation on the ground... whether or not I agree with the War, I do believe in responsible government, so I believe we do have a responsibility to not leave a vacuum in our wake.

I don't like War, I consider it one of the greatest evils we can inflict on one another, but sometimes it is a necessary evil - but this is not a debate about the pros and cons of war... it's about how and when we get our troops out.

I came into office with a promise to have a plan in train to get all of our troops out, I have stretched our Commands to get the earliest date possible for all three theatres. I presented, what I believe is a very fair compromise position, I went into discussions in good faith, and I was prepared to work with the Senate, but I'm not sure those same considerations have been reciprocated.  

Those dates were not picked arbitrarily, they are carefully considered to account for all reasonable eventualities.

I think we are doing ourselves more damage by shouting over what in essence are details - our aims are the same, but the methods by which we do are slightly different.

Again, I think there needs to be a final vote on this and just let what will be, be.

Those are some constructive issues, thank you.

Firstly, we are now operating in Libya as a peacekeeping mission - not combat. I have said many times that our exit from Libya will be the fastest, because we are not entrenched nor is stability or fundamental security dependent on us.

Secondly, Iraq. I understand that the general view is that all is going well and we should just be able to walk out with little consequence. However, there are pockets where our troops are a significant part of the security structure. Part of the withdrawal - especially post-November will be to increase the training for those replacing the Atlasian security forces. Those training will still require security and support. I feel very strongly, that in this theatre we do owe the Iraqi people some stability.

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

In relation to your question about the strategy - I believe I've outlined our reasoning - and I don't want to sound glib here, but I believe considering that we now have a policy of withdrawal, the goal to winning the peace is to leave those nations prepared to win their own peace and not to create a de-stabilisation by our exit.

Again, we could go in circles in this - I am currently in a period of final negotiations - while I hope something constructive will come out of it... I'm not expecting it and I think this situation is not helping us at all - and Senate needs to vote as soon as is practicable so our forces have some idea of what they'll be doing.

Mr. President you have repeatedly dodged Senator Shua's question. I would like to see a straightforward answer. EDIT: answered thanks.

I motion to bring cloture to debate on this bill.

Finally. :P


A vote is now open on the motion for cloture of debate and proceed immediately to a final vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. This will require 2/3rd's support of the entire Senate to pass.

Nay.

I know.. shoot me later.  Since I made the motion, I've decided we need more time to debate this.

You really are a tease, lol

Nay! I expect that this bill needs some more debate.

"We're going up, We're going down.
We're going up, down, down, up
anyway you want me to go.
Yea, yea yea.
You got me doing what you want me,
oh baby what do you want me to do?
You got me doing what you want me,
oh baby what do you want me to do?"

Not as good as Elvis, but it will do. :P

Nay

naye

nay

Aye

Nay

Nay.


I am not sure if I can do this, this soon, but this has failed.

I think debate should continue and everyone should cool their heels a bit before we move forward.

We debate hasn't continued here.

One more day, and I shalln't answer for the consequences for this bill. :P

I think it's reasonable to wait until after the election and the weekend is over and see then if any progress has been made or can be made at reaching an agreement.
I appreciate the President's response to the issues I posed. What I am still wondering is what we would do differently in the next few months in Afghanistan from what we have done so far - as whatever we are doing right now doesn't seem to be working.

I prefer activity brinksmanship, but I think I'll compromise here. :P


Two more days or.....

There is no need to rush.

The other thing I am considering is that, I believe, we really ought to leave before the end of the training/recruitment season. We need to be handing those duties off to the Afghani forces too before we leave, and once the more active combat season begins again the Afghani forces will already be responsible for all security. If we are still operating there in the Spring the security vacuum when we leave could actually be more severe than if we leave earlier.

Interesting point. Do we know what the conditions and capabilities are regarding the Afghan forces? I'd assume it's the same as in RL but I suppose the GM could give a firmer answer on that.

I know I said I would stay out of it... but I wanted to make a comment on the Senator's reasonable points.

The military reason for staying on until the end of the training/recruitment season is to make sure that the Afghan forces are as strong as they can be before we leave. This has been a particularly difficult year and as we are deciding to leave, I believe we do have a responsibility to make that transition as balanced and effective as possible.

The coalition forces, as part of the restructuring agreement are the ones responsible for training - and therefore we do need to have some continuing presence.

I should stress that I'm not talking about all of our troops being there until May and then they all leave the next day. It will be a measured draw-down from the moment the order is given, the areas where troops can leave, they will leave, but the areas where more effort is required to build the Afghani's military capacity we will focus more attention to ensure the deadline is met.

Just thought I should make that point.

In the compromise plan I offered, I did allow for a small contingent of troops to remain in Afghanistan to provide personal protection for high government officials.  I said that highly trained troops should perform this action and that there needn't be a withdrawal date for this very specific mission.

Otherwise, my offer was to get the troops out by March 1st (save the small contingent outlined above).

The President offered having the troops out by May 1st with the contingent force out by the end of next year, mostly to train Afghan troops to perform the job of protecting the government officials.

I plan to support the bill as it is currently... but if the veto should be sustained, I will offer the compromise measure in its place. 

May 1st would seem like an acceptable date if all the leaders are in agreement that it is the best decision. The last thing I want, as I'm sure the rest of us can agree, is for us to leave and the whole country collapses. Then we have wasted countless lives and billions of dollars for no reason at all. We need to make sure the coalition forces are adequately trained before we pull everyone out, or the likelihood the above scenario happens is very real.

I don't at all like the idea of our troops serving as personal bodyguards to foreign officials. That just furthers the impression that it is we, not the Afghans themselves, who are running their country. But other than that, I think Snowguy's timeframe makes sense.

We aren't serving as body guards in the true sense of the word, once our combat/training mission has been concluded - as we are there to help ensure stability and we have our own diplomatic presence to consider the protection of.

I really do understand all of these points, but I think there are serious practical considerations beyond what we "should" or "shouldn't" be doing.

Guys, considering what is going on in Libya right now, it might be a good idea to take a breath for now.

It's been two days. We can't just sit here indefinately.

I've been engaging with Senators in some further negotiations - I'm not sure this can wait until the new Senate sits....

Two days is so long. It isn't as if we were busy with an election. ::)

I think there was a Senator planning to propose an amendment but i'll wait for him.

Calm down Nappy.  I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't push things. I see a blank thread sitting for two days, that is a problem regardless of the circumstances and we need to see either an update on negotiations if they are occuring or the Senate has to move along. I have always been very lenient on time and have no problem giving this the time it needs. But work has to be progressing on the bill throughout the entirety of that time. If it is occuring behind the scenes, then a simple post like Polnut gave would suffice.

The election was only occuring in the minority of that time after Polnut posted we should wait and the posting of my call for some indication of activity or movement here.

And even if the election was on-going throughout that period, it wouldn't matter. We haven't the time to just do nothing during election days.

I am calm.

I do think election times allow for it to be reasonable for us to be a bit preoccupied.

We can slow the pace, but we can't stop entirely during those periods.

Are these behind the scenes negotiations going anywhere?

I'm sure there are, but I haven't been approached by anyone, so I guess the powers that be are intent with me opposing the bill. ;)

Intent? If you mean content, then yes. I don't think anyone working on this bill expected your vote.

Yes, iPhone autocorrect strikes again. You'd be surprised how easy I am to work with, Mr. Napoleon, if your idea was reasonable.

But OK. I'll be sure to vote against it then!

My idea is reasonable. You already said you opposed this bill. Stop acting like there is anything else to it.

I'm waiting to see what the final outcome is, and whether a Senator will be making an amendment.

I probably would have expected something by now, but I'm sure there's a reason.

An agreement has been reached.

Here is our compromise offered as an amendment

End to Imperialism Act
Funding for combat troops in Libya, and transfer of weapons to combatants there, shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective September 15, 2011.
Funding for combat troops in Iraq shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective November 30, 2011.
Funding for combat troops in Afghanistan shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective May 1, 2012, excepting training forces in Kabul. Funding for the remaining troops in Afghanistan shall no longer be authorized by this Senate effective October 1, 2012.

I urge the Senate to adopt the compromise.  It achieves our goals, and all I wish for is a name change :P

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

This was is a considered Bill which may not be ideal for all does reflect both the realities on the ground and our place as a responsible global citizen.

I thank those Senators with whom I negotiated this agreement for their willingness to work together toward the common goal of getting our troops home and doing so in a sensible and thoughtful manner.

Despite having my feelings hurt over this bill, I won't let my unchecked emotions get in the way of the bill. I will support it. I think it is a reasonable time table we should all consider supporting.

Amendment 44:38 has passed.



With no debate in the past 24 hours, a final vote is now open on the End to Imperialism Act, Senators please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

A bill changes completely during a hurricane, without any explanation about the details, and as soon as I get internet access back we have to vote on it?

I had a similar situation, though I was aware of the changes.

Aye. Though if Senator Shua has a compelling reason, it may be a good idea to stop the vote.

I really am confused about this. Whatever happened to the President's proposal to have all forces leave Afghanistan by June 1?
As far as restricting the forces there after May 1 to training, we shouldn't kid ourselves. That doesn't mean they won't be in combat. As long as they are in Afghanistan, they will be targeted. And isn't Winter the training season anyway?

aye

Shua-  If you want to debate the bill, you should call for the vote to stop and reopen debate.

May 1st is better than June 1st...the President is responsible for ensuring the safety of the small training force in Kabul.

Nay

Thank you. Yes, I would like to call for the vote to stop and return to debate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures#Section_1:__Rules_for_Voting_on_Legislation


There is no procedure for a Senator to just call for a final vote to halt and for Senate debate to resume. I would like to know where you found that, Snowguy? :P This text up top is the only provision that can be used to halt a final vote, that I know of.

 

In the case that there's a real life natural disaster and we have absolutely no access to the internet and it's beyond our control?

This is especially the case since you just started the vote without a senator calling for a vote.. you based it on the fact that nobody posted.. when in fact Shua may have wanted to, but couldn't.

I think it is safe to say that when a hurricane threatens Washington, congress will not take up business... especially on important foreign policy matters that are not considered an emergency.

It is one thing if a senator cannot make it due to a personal problem... but when he is completely unable to debate or vote due to a RL natural disaster that also shuts down our RL nation's capital... I think exceptions can be made.

If you're going to throw the rule book at me, then why wasn't this bill voted on a long time ago?  Surely there were periods of 24+ hours with no debate?

The rules are the rules... but there is no language in the OSPR that states a vote cannot be stopped due to unusual or extreme circumstances.

I would say if this issue isn't addressed and Shua's concerns aren't dealt with to his satisfaction, I will push to keep the vote open until the current senate is dissolved and the next one is seated.

Aye

Given that we have debated this to death, and no one brought up their reservations prior to the 24 hour period before the vote, and given Ben endorses this compromise along with the President, I will vote aye on it. I am not an expert on the matter, but I do think this proposal is much more in line with what I would consider to be reasonable. While I am not one for timelines, I think this strikes a balance between withdrawing too soon and staying in an endless war too long. It simply isn't sustainable to remain there forever.

Aye

The bill in it's original form was heavily debated, but the new version was very altered, and I think it's unfair to start a final vote on it when at least one Senator who has been an active part in this debate had no internet access due to a natural disaster.

This clause was added in back in 2009 when I think Jedi was PPT. The standard interpretation was votes couldn't be halted for any reason and there was a situation where an amendment got forgot and a bill had to be voted down and reintroduced to consider the amendment. So they added clause three in there.

Ther other problem is Article 5 is not listed in the Article 8 which deals with overiding sections of the OSPR. And I am not sure if BK can still use Section 2.1 as loophole abuse since he actually posted a general delegation of authority to the PPT. If he hadn't he could selectively say this vote was illegal because the PPT didn't have the authority to preside over the Senate. He could say he retracts such authority for the duration of Sunday for the purposes of this thread.

There is no need for this bitterness, Snowguy. It is not my intent to deprive shua of his rights as a Senator. My priority is to ensure the Senate operates effectively and fairly. I refrained from using my usual cautious enquiry into the status of a bill prior to opening a vote. In previous PPTships, including yours I beleive, the opening of the vote by the PPT was considered a defacto call for a vote by the PPT. I figured that avoiding a situation like this justified such cautionary change. On this bill I was under the impression that the negotiations had included shua and that all parties had agreed to the posted text, and therefore this one time it was wasn't needed. It seems like everytime I break my own policies I get reminded why I instituted them. :P

 I didn't throw the rule book at you, I was asking where you found such authority since I wasn't aware of any such procedure. We definately need a procedure to allow the PPT to waive certain portions of the OSPR. As BK said three weeks ago, such doesn't currently exist, except now in two parts of Article 4 dealing with debating and the ending of debate.

As I said in the previous post, the precedent is that the PPT isn't able to end votes unless the OSPR authorizes such like clause three of Article 5.

And finally, waiting till the end of the Senate, really doesn't do a damn thing. Whatever BK can do then, he can do now. :P

Thanks for your efforts here Snowguy.

Does it matter at all that there was no chance for debate between the time the amendment was announced to have passed and the time the vote on the amended version begun?

to illustrate my confusion with the idea of combat forces staying in Afghanistan to conduct training until October 2012 as a compromise with the President -

Change my vote to Abstain.

It might.

Ultimately the only one who can decide whether it is though is BK. He bitchslapped every reason I gave for ending the CSS final vote and then utilized the Section 2.1 arrow to legalize the ending of that vote. Then he officially delegated authority which may have rended 2.1 as unusable. I didn't get a chance to PM him yet, I will do that next. In the meantime, operate under the assumption that the vote will be ended, make your case, ask your questions etc etc as you currently are.

I called 24 hours for the amendment at 10 PM on the 26th and then declared it had passed at 3 PM on the 28th and started the voted immediately, on the grounds that no debate had occured in that last 24 hours.

I don't know the precedent on this specifically but a similar one was rejected by BK. The 24 hour period to object to an amendment could be considered as part of the "consideration" of the amendment, and thus possibly as debate. So from 10 pm on the 27th to only 3 PM on the 28th is less then 24 hours. I would then use my choice of words "no debate having occured in the last 24 hours" as the factor that makes it different from the similar justification of final vote abortion. That vote was started using past periods of innactivity as grounds for calling it and then when I stopped it saying debate was on-going at that time and thus the vote was invalid, BK responded that violated precedent. So I take that to mean past periods of innactivity are legitimate reasons for starting a vote. What makes this case different is that the final vote wasn't started using past periods of innactivity but a "current" period of inactivity in excess of 24 hours, "With no debate occuring in the last 24 hours...". It would then come down to whether or not that 24 hour objection period can be counted as debate since it is part of the consideration process of the amendment. I think so, though the President of the Senate (BK) is free to make his own judgement on that.


I thus abort the final vote on the grounds that debate had not ceased for the requisite 24 hours.

This decision is subject to VP review and revising, in case you are too lazy to read the paragraph

Now that is "thin". :P


lol, Lethal Weapon.

Are we going to get answers here to shua's concerns, or was stopping the vote pointless? :P


Just because he is no longer Senator, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a response, especially since they were posed while still in office. ;)

I agree that it's a bit unfair to start a final vote when someone missed the debate of a significant amendment due to a natural disaster. Not that you did anything wrong, NCYankee, because you didn't know that was the case. We really need an OSPR amendment to allow greater discretionary power to the Senate's presiding officer(s).

In the mean time, though, let's fix this problem with the magic of BK's Patented Loophole Abuse!™

---

Ahem. It appears we have missed an amendment. I do assure you my intent in this post was to offer an amendment. Of course.

---

As we started this vote while an amendment was still suposed to be under consideration, by OSPR Article 5, Section 1, Clause 4 I'm stopping this vote. (Note that, unlike all other parts of that section, it does not specify an amendment offered by a Senator.) :)


The final vote ceases; the Senate shall now consider the amendment.

---

Under OSPR Article 4, Section 2, Clause 4, I am removing the current amendment from consideration because it is clearly frivolous, unconstitutional, and in violation of Senate by-laws, as it was not offered by a member of the Senate. The amendment's sponsor has 24 hours to object (and I assure you, I will not :P)

Debate on the bill resumes.

Are you sure? :P Just kidding ;D


I would have felt more awkward making that case, then I felt making mine. ;)


We have an OSPR amendment coming up in the queue, but there might be opposition to attaching other/more significant changes onto it.

Alas, debate has resumed, and our esteemed colleague is no longer here to debate.  :(

Perhaps if our esteemed colleague were to PM me his thoughts or objections to the bill, I would voice said thoughts on behalf of said constituent.  :)

"You can check out anytime you like, but you may never leave" - Hotel California >:D

Well technically debate resumed on the 31st and even before my "inferior" vote ending attempt (no one is as creative at this as BK :)), I posted that Senators should operate as if the vote had been ended in terms of discussion etc because even if mine was no good, something would have been done to end the vote. I even changed the topic line at that point so people would take notice.



Ironically,  it seems that after I "attempted" to stop the vote, what also stopped was the discussion.

Well, I am supportive of the compromise... but I believed Shua was getting the raw end of the deal and we were letting outdated and rigid senate rules get in the way of his rights as a senator.

I am glad we found a way to resume debate.

I will PM Shua about his input.

The middle paragraph of my post got erased. :(


The basic contents were that atleast as far as I am concerned, shua is free to discuss the matter openly in this thread. We have never prevented private citizens from taking part in debate and even if one did have a problem with allowing such, this is certainly a case where it is most deserved considering what happened to shua. Personal Messages work good for allowing Senators to introduce bills and amendments to bills, but transcribing thoughts and ideas via such a method seems impractical, especially if in high volume.

Oh, and in case some have missed it with all the procedural crap, shua did start on the previous page on the 30th of August to explain some of his concerns:

Shua's concerns, and I'm wont to echo them, is the size of the security force remaining on the ground in Afghanistan after most troops leave.

His concern is that if the force is anything but the absolute minimum we need, it could draw unwanted attention and they could become targets along with the people they are there to protect and train, thus defeating the entire purpose of having a training/security force in place in the first place.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Completely random linguistic sidenote:

The word "wont" comes from middle English "woned", which was the past participle of the verb wonen, which meant "to live".  This is very similar to the German word "wohnen", which means "to live" or "inhabit". 

Leben is the German word to live as in "I am alive" but I could never figure out if wohnen had somehow been in the english language as well.  Well, now we know it has.. and its definition has changed into "being inclined or apt" to do something.

I don't think the mere presence of extra men will provide enough additional incentive for someone to cross that line in the sand and decide to start planting car bombs. For most that decision is based on "there or not" rather then a "few to many".

Now we should keep the number to a minimum for the sake of not exposing additional men to that risk who don't need to be there.

Am I correct in saying that it's the President that needs to respond to shua's concerns. I can PM him, but I may not have time tonight.

Apologies Senators,

The original time-frame proposed was based on preliminary information that wasn't accurate plus,  President Karazi's decision to not seek re-election had not been taken into account.

It was determined that Kabul would require more effort to both stabilise the city and provide training.

Thank you Polnut, I understand there was a necessary rethinking of the timeframe, but my concern  now is to get an idea of the scope of the project during the summer/fall next year. So, our troops would be not just training, but engaged in stabilization as well; or only in training camps within and around the city? Roughly how many troops are we talking about staying in Kabul then, and how does this compare to the number there currently?

Once combat forces formally leave in May, the intended role for the stabilisation force will not be to engage in traditional combat but to act in two specific roles.

1. To provide a peace-keeping presence in Kabul, their rules of engagement will allow for the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as guarding the Atlasian embassy and the training forces; whose

2. Sole purpose will be to provide training for the Afghan Army.

In relation to raw numbers, the scope of the project is still being assessed, but after 1 May - the number of troops will be 5-10% of current forces (closer to 5%)

Thank you President, for clarifying.

My opinion is that if there is to be a peacekeeping presence in Kabul, that the Senate needs to specify this as being authorized  - otherwise I would read it as saying that our only role would be training.

So we need an amendment to this bill then to authorize this presence?

Will anyone be doing this?

Debate on this has seems have to ended, despite talk of further amendments. I might try to open a final vote on this soon if you guys are done.

With no debate in the past 24 hours, a final vote is now open on the End to Imperialism Act, Senators please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

so you're not giving the President authority for a peacekeeping presence? okay.

Aye

---

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Nay

aye

Nay

The senate is authorizing a training force presence in Kabul.  What that training force does is up to the president and the military.

Then why doesn't it just say "forces" instead of "training forces" if they are doing things other than training?
What is a training force except a force engaged in training?

This bill has passed with 7 ayes and 2 nays.

It is now presented to the President for his signature.

Let today be known as the day Atlasians worked together and came together to accomplish something just and responsible.

Now can we turn to the FPR and GTO bills waiting in the wings?

This is why I propose a foreign policy slot. :)

Well, just in case you guys haven't noticed, I'm trying to move the Senate along and get some of these older bills over with. ;) We have a pretty large queue that I'd like to get started on. If all goes accordingly, 3 or 4 of the current pieces of legislation will be done with by the end of the week.

()