[SENATE] MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Bill of 1981

[OYID]

MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Bill of 1981
To promote world peace and friendship through a MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps, which shall make available to countries and areas in need men and women of the Mountain States interested in service at home or abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.

Details: the MSAHVC will recieve one credit's worth of funding and coordinate closely with FEMA for training and preparation, three month's worth, to take place under the supervision of FEMA. The Volunteers will receive room and board for the duration of their training and deployment, be it at home or abroad. To carry this out it will be necessary to create the Office of the MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Headquarters, which will also serve as the training grounds for the Volunteers. Such a project will bring jobs and development to the greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan area, chosen as the proposed seat of this project for its relatively centric position as well as the usefulness of the jobs created by this project for that area. As previously mentioned, the MSAHVC would be under the direction of the Department of the Interior, coordinating closely with FEMA.

The bill is now submitted to the debate of the Senate

Signed by Senator Philip Donovan (S) of New Mexico.

[Smyg]

Senator Jacqueline Cullen
Louisiana, Progressive Moderates

If I may, I find the suggested allocation of funds to this project far too low. Double, at the very least, should be our target. Take a look at a world map, Senators. Point out a single country - aside from these Mountain States - which isn't in some state of societal collapse, in some way. Look at the Americas, or any other region where the local governments may be convinced to grant MSA humanitarian workers access. There is so much we can contribute, and we're a rich state.

I also question the suggestion to place the new volunteer corps under the Department of the Interior, which is - after all - intended for the Interior. While the Department, naturally, has a lot of roles to play abroad, I feel that such a significant step towards international efforts should be on the Secretary of State's agenda.

[Litos]

Floyd Ramsey

We believe this project has great merit but that the resources of the country need to be used carefully. Given the lengths of the amendments process and our proximity to the next session in which the tabling and reintroduction of this bill is mandatory if not passed, this bill can count on the support of the Progressive Conservatives provided a second bill increasing funding at a later date, after the effect of this program can be found out and reported to the people.

[OYID]

We welcome the comments from Senator Cullen and Senator Ramsey, we propose that the pilot program begin with a one-credit's worth of funding and increase gradually over a year to two, constantly reporting on the progress made both in the ground and increasing the preparedness level of the Volunteers.

We assure our colleague from Louisiana that the Department of the Interior has its very own Office of International Affairs and we believe it to be quite capable of being up to the task. This is, however, a point in which we are willing to work with the current administration, as our main concern is that the Corps don't fail to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[OYID]

Seeing as how the public has deemed this initiative as worthy of merit, the Socialist Party has decided to bring the matter up again before the Senate floor. We are willing to concede on the point of the control of this new Institution, so the bill would look like this:

MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Bill of 1981
To promote world peace and friendship through a MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps, which shall make available to countries and areas in need men and women of the Mountain States interested in service at home or abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.

• The MSAHVC is a humanitarian institution, to be placed under the authority of the Department of State, which will, in coordination with FEMA, be deployed to areas both at home and abroad to provide humanitarian and development help in a thoroughly peace-seeking and non-interventionist manner, always coordinating with local authorities and communities to perform its duties in the most efficient way possible.
• The seat of this organization will be the MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Headquarters, to be built and located in the greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, chosen for its relatively centric position as well as its need for the jobs and economic activity such a project will bring about. The construction would, thus, be contracted exclusively to local businesses.
• The MSAVCHQ will also have the necessary installations for Volunteers to receive room and board for the duration of their training, minimum three months, after which they will be considered in Official MSA Volunteer Service for the length of one year, after which their Tour of Duty will be considered to be over and at which point they will be given the option to sign up for another tour or be discharged from service, at which point they may retain their uniform and current rank. The Volunteers will receive no pay other than the aforementioned room and board.

We hope the preceding proposal is satisfactory for the approval of the Senate.

[Coin]

I find the amended bill quite amenable and far more suitable to go before this Senate in principle. I would congratulate them on ceding the point as far as control goes, and the idea has some merit. I do however have several questions I might submit to the Senators concerned. Firstly, how would deployment be legally managed and what input would Congress have, if any, on the matter?

Secondly, what size would this organisation be envisaged at in manpower terms?

I second Senator Perryman's comments but would also raise the issue of cost - particularly as the initial bill and questions focusing on spending allocations were of note.

Firstly does the bill still envisage one credit of funding? Secondly, does the bill still envisage a doubling of this to two credits by the end of the year; thirdly, is this a matter to be costed from the Treasury or from the State Department's budget as (presumably) increased in an administration's budget? A final and perhaps obvious request, if I may be excused, would be for this information to be added to the amended bill.

[OYID]

Yes, these are all valid questions to put before this bill. First off, deployment would be authorized and overseen by the Department of State, whose authority falls strictly under the President, who can withdraw them or move them as he sees fit. At present there is no consideration for Congressional input, except, of course, for the matter of funding and changes to this law. Should the Republicans offer an idea on this area, we'll be glad to hear it.

We propose applications to be open as soon as the MSAHVCHQ is up and running, with a minimum of one hundred Volunteers needed to deploy in any action and a maximum of ten thousand for the entire organization[1]. All this, of course with the implication that there might come a time when Congress will have to amend the nature of the MSAHVC to reflect its possibly changing nature.

The matter of funding still stands as Senator Morris proposed them, with the caveat that this bill was originally intended to pass during the first quarter, with the second credit being spent until the last. If we manage to pass it this quarter, we will propose that the gradual increase of the organization's budget be finished by the end of the first quarter of next year.

The amended bill would look something like this:

MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Bill of 1981
To promote world peace and friendship through a MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps, which shall make available to countries and areas in need men and women of the Mountain States interested in service at home or abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.

• The MSAHVC is a humanitarian institution, to be placed under the authority of the Department of State, which will, in coordination with FEMA, be deployed to areas both at home and abroad to provide humanitarian and development help in a thoroughly peace-seeking and non-interventionist manner, always coordinating with local authorities and communities to perform its duties in the most efficient way possible.
• The seat of this organization will be the MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Headquarters, to be built and located in the greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, chosen for its relatively centric position as well as its need for the jobs and economic activity such a project will bring about. The construction would, thus, be contracted exclusively to local businesses.
• The MSAHVCHQ will also have the necessary installations for Volunteers to receive room and board for the duration of their training, minimum three months, after which they will be considered in Official MSA Volunteer Service for the length of one year, after which their Tour of Duty will be considered to be over and at which point they will be given the option to sign up for another tour or be discharged from service, at which point they may retain their uniform and current rank. The Volunteers will receive no pay other than the aforementioned room and board.
• The MSAHVC as a whole will start out with one credit's worth of funding, which will be gradually increased over time until by the end of the first quarter of 1982 it will be of a full two credits.

Spoiler

Show

[1]IRL early Peace Corps numbers: The program was formally authorized by Congress on September 22, 1961, and within two years over 7,300 volunteers were serving in 44 countries. This number increased to 15,000 in June 1966, the largest number in the organization's history.[18] Source: Wikipedia.

[Coin]

Senator Brewer is to be commended for her swift and clear response to my colleagues. While I personally would be concerned at the cost potentially increasing exponentially, it does at any rate appear a fine idea for us to scrutinise.

My own question refers to the authority as far as deployment goes. Naturally the advantages of retaining the competence to deploy the hypothetical Corps with the executive is swift action when needed. However should we raise the issue of some kind of oversight for continued deployments, or at the very least a requirement - after an initial timeperiod of deployment - for Congress to vote? Particularly as costs and funding would arrive at the Appropriations level anyway.

A potential level for this might be Committee, but this may well be unsatisfactory depending on electoral arithmetic. I would appreciate the thoughts of those across the aisle before as a party we can state our own policy opinion, but suffice to say the idea is sound enough if properly stewarded financially and with some kind of oversight for a continued deployment which may prove costly.

[OYID]

We understand Republican concerns, and would recommend the creation of a permanent House Committee on the MSAHVC, though that of course will have to be approved by the lower chamber, with any deployment over six months being subject to Congress approval to continue. Might we ask, what's the electoral arithmetic problem, exactly? If the concern is over opposition representation we can very well add an amendment requiring Committee membership be proportional to the number of House seats.

[Coin]

My concerns were in the case of both Houses having separate electoral arithmetic, if you catch my meaning. However I do believe the proposal for it to require Congressional approval over six months to have merit, and to be a handy and practical amendment. The creation of an entirely new Committee I would say is rather jumping the gun at such an early stage even if the bill were to pass.

I agree with Senator Clayton. My only remaining concern is to see how this will fit in with a spending plan by the administration, and if the voting through of this shall necessitate cuts to the armed forces as hinted at by Senator Marquez.

[Snacks]

My fellow Senators, as has been pointed out by colleagues in the House, it has been far too long that this bill has been allowed to languish thanks to those across the aisle taking advantage of our Socialist friend's attempts to bring their input into the process of crafting this bill and choosing to withhold input or comment. This is unacceptable when we are in the middle of a manufactured crisis that threatens our ability to aid our friends abroad. As such I present the bill, with the previously agreed upon amendment providing for Congressional oversight, for voting, and urge my fellow Coalition Senators to do so. I should hope that given the acceptance of this amendment, formulated in response to their concerns, those across the aisle will follow suit rather than attempt to let this bill fizzle out with vague claims about "electoral arithmetic".

MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Bill of 1981
To promote world peace and friendship through a MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps, which shall make available to countries and areas in need men and women of the Mountain States interested in service at home or abroad and willing to serve, under conditions of hardship if necessary, to help the peoples of such countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained manpower.

• The MSAHVC is a humanitarian institution, to be placed under the authority of the Department of State, which will, in coordination with FEMA, be deployed to areas both at home and abroad to provide humanitarian and development help in a thoroughly peace-seeking and non-interventionist manner, always coordinating with local authorities and communities to perform its duties in the most efficient way possible.
• The seat of this organization will be the MSA Humanitarian Volunteer Corps Headquarters, to be built and located in the greater Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area, chosen for its relatively centric position as well as its need for the jobs and economic activity such a project will bring about. The construction would, thus, be contracted exclusively to local businesses.
• The MSAHVCHQ will also have the necessary installations for Volunteers to receive room and board for the duration of their training, minimum three months, after which they will be considered in Official MSA Volunteer Service for the length of one year, after which their Tour of Duty will be considered to be over and at which point they will be given the option to sign up for another tour or be discharged from service, at which point they may retain their uniform and current rank. The Volunteers will receive no pay other than the aforementioned room and board.
• The MSAHVC as a whole will start out with one credit's worth of funding, which will be gradually increased over time until by the end of the first quarter of 1982 it will be of a full two credits.
• Any given group of MSAHVC humanitarian aid workers may be deployed abroad for up to six months of work (not including travel time to and from the nation they are deployed to) at which point their continued deployment is subject to approval by the House of Representatives. Designation of an appropriate committee, subcommittee, or creation of one if necessary, will be left to the discretion of the House.

2 Progressive Hard Left votes IN FAVOR

[OYID]

3 Socialist Votes In Favor.

[Smyg]

While I in every way possible support the spirit of this proposal, at the present time I just can't condone it. Following the blatant actions of hostility towards the Haitian people from the current administration, masked by supposed good-will, and the attempted misuse of domestic organizations similar to this proposed MSAHVC - for example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency - for partisan purposes... well, I'm sure you understand my problem with the bill.

3 Republican Liberal votes AGAINST.

[Coin]

3 Republican Conservative votes against.

[BgKnight]

4 Republican Moderates votes against.