From Shakespeare to Doja Cat, Senators’ Discussions of Potential Bills Contain Multitudes

The full Senate came together to introduce and vote on several bills in a Senate Full session, including the E.D.U.C.A.T.E, POP, and E.C.H.O Acts. All three bills passed resoundingly, but the Senate tabled debate on a bill concerning women’s rights until tomorrow morning.

Authors IA-Sr, Tx-Sr, MN-Sr., IL-Sr., RI-Sr., CA-Jr., and CA-Sr created the Protection of Privacy, aka POP, bill to give Americans full control of their personal lives. It started quite a debate at the Senate Full session on January 13th, with many representatives criticizing the bill.

This bill focuses on the fact that the Supreme Court can take rights away with extreme ease, codifying the Supreme Court cases Griswold v. Connecticut, Texas v. Lawrence, and Obergefell v. Hodges to protect privacy, contraception, sodomy and interracial marriage.  

The authors said they want the government to recognize privacy to ensure that our rights cannot be stripped from us, to guarantee that the people have the right to same-sex relationships, along with everything else previously mentioned, without penalty. 

The Supreme Court and its power was a vital part of the debate, with some Senators proposing to reduce their power and others wanting to maintain it. 

According to the bill’s proponents, the Supreme Court could take away their fundamental rights which is exactly the contrary of what they want to achieve. They have made sure to emphasize that the government should not have the power to make decisions regarding privacy, therefore giving the people the right to decide in their personal lives.

In a speech criticizing POP, Maine’s Senior Senator quotes Shakespeare, stating “wisely and slow, they stumble and run fast,” implying that the bill’s proposed data privacy regulations would do more harm than good.

An amendment proposed by the Kansas Junior Senator was split into two amendments; the first would strike section 3, Privacy in Data Collection, while the second would clarify the wording of the bill’s enforcement. The first amendment failed 19-24, while the second amendment was passed by a wide margin. 

Senator Ted Cruz was by far the harshest critic of the bill’s goal of guaranteeing rights to same-sex couples, proposing an amendment which would strike the rulings of Lawrence V Texas and Obergefell v Hodges from the bill’s codification efforts. However, the senators showed a clear lack of interest in hearing this amendment out, and it failed to proceed to voting.

The POP Act soon moved to voting procedures; after a passionate speech by Iowa senator Chuck Grassley emphasizing the bill’s goal of “securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans,” as well as the need for bipartisanship, the bill was passed in a 23-15-3 majority. Although the bill’s authors emphasized the bipartisanship in POP’s creation, only two republicans voted in favor of the act during the Senate Full Session.

Senators from the Senate HELP committee presented the Empowering Democratic Universal Choice in Access to Education act (EDUCATE). The bill’s authors (VA-Jr., NH-Jr., VT-Sr., WI-Jr., MN-Jr.) created the bill with the intent of outlining a federal funding program for public and charter schools, an incentive for the better inclusion of low-income and marginalized student applicants.  

The bill faced much criticism in front of the Senate, with multiple Senators highlighting Section 3b, which requires schools to “put a special emphasis on the applications of low-income and marginalized students.”  One Tennessee Senator claimed that the section was “just lowering standards to make up for the past,” suggesting that this method to promote equity in charter schools was not in the best interests of improving state education. An amendment was proposed to strike Section 3b from the bill, but was narrowly opposed by a vote of 18 to16.  

A Connecticut Senator also proposed an amendment to cut Section 2 of the bill, which discussed the implementation of a “0.25% decrease in federal grant allocation to general infrastructural development” if a state violates Section 4 of the bill.  This amendment, however, quickly failed.

Section 3b was brought up once again, this time by the authors (specifically NH-Jr), calling for a friendly amendment to cut section 3b in order to please the majority of the Senate, as passing the bill in order to make changes towards bettering the funding for public schools was more important than the faulty addition of inclusion in admissions.  For the Senate, the increase in federal funding was at the forefront of the bill, with one author stating “we can’t make change in a broken system without money.”  

The Section 3b amendment passed, and soon after the EDUCATE Act itself was passed, with a vote of 22 for, 13 against, and 5 abstaining .  The Act will be presented to the House in the coming days.

Later in the session, a group of representatives from the House Full Session presented their Education and Cybersecurity Help Overhaul (ECHO) Act to the senate after it had passed in the House Full Session. The bill’s authors (NC-05, SC-01, WI-06, MI-09) explained the bill’s main points in a short speech which included both passionate calls to defend our nation’s security and references to Doja Cat and 21 Savage.

The Representatives explained that the bill would reallocate funds from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to cybersecurity firms, stating that this action would “boost capitalism” in cybersecurity. Additionally, authors discussed the Act’s creation of a federal cybersecurity education program taught by cybersecurity and government professionals in public schools.

During a Q&A session, the bill’s authors defended the reallocation of military funds for cybersecurity firms, explaining that the amount taken would be negligible compared to the military’s budget, as they stated that the Act would not require excessive amounts of funding. Following criticism by senators of the potential lack of safety of the cybersecurity database the bill would create, the authors explained that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) would protect and secure this database from breaches.

Next, senators criticized the Representatives' comparison between the Act’s cybersecurity education program and previous anti-drug education programs like DARE, showing concern that this education program would succumb to the same unsuccessful fate as these drug prevention programs. However, ECHO’s authors denied this prediction, explaining that this education would be a successful long-term solution. One representative rejected the comparison entirely, stating humorously that although teaching students about specific drugs could cause them to seek those drugs out, “no one is going to be addicted to cybersecurity” as a result of learning about online scammers and cookies.

Texas Junior Senator Ted Cruz spoke passionately in defense of E.C.H.O during a pro-con session, praising the bill’s preservation of states’ rights as well as the collaboration between the government and private companies, which he hoped would encourage the growth of capitalism.

Still, some criticism remained regarding ECHO. One Virginian senator questioned the need for a cybersecurity database if information is already publicly available, while Hawaii’s junior senator, Mazie Hirono, criticized the “lazy use of money” by the government in diverting funds from the military.

The EC.H.O. Aact was passed by a 27-9 majority following the adoption of an amendment adding section 4C to the bill, which specified the nature of the courses taught in the cybersecurity education program.

A group of Democrats from the Senate Judiciary Committee next presented the Womens’ Rights Act, which would cement the right to abortion as a federal law. During debate surrounding the bill, stances were varied; while Senator Padilla of California stated that opposition to abortion was “illogical,” one republican senator stated that the act would “legalize murder.” Wisconsin’s Junior Senator brought up the point that banning legal abortion would increase the rates of unsafe, illegal abortions.

The senators voted to table the Womens’ Rights Act until tomorrow morning’s Senate Full Session. This story is still ongoing, and further updates will be released as Senate sessions continue.

This article was written by Mary Claire McGreivey, Militza Méndez, and Bryce Jenkins.