The June 2015 Official Northeast Senate Debate

[Talleyrand]

Question 1: What is your view of the Protecting Vulnerable Infrastructure Bill drafted by Senator Polnut, which seeks to partner federal and regional officials to shore up regionally-controlled infrastructure against the effects of climate change?

Thank you for hosting this debate, Harry.

I am entirely in favor of Senator Polnut's Protecting Vulnerable Infrastructure Bill, because I believe that updating any infrastructure or vital buildings in our regions to reflect ongoing changes in climate is an extremely important idea. We cannot stand by with outdated infrastructure amidst rising sea levels, irregular mass-storms, drought, and other fluctuations in weather resulting from global warming. Given time, this bill will save lives while in the immediate term it will allow us to provide jobs to Atlasians out of work as construction commences.

I feel like it's part of the overarching focus on environmental issues we're about to take on in this country, combined with my foreign (rather than domestic) affairs bill focusing on preserving international flora and fauna from threat.

[Talleyrand]

Question 2: Members of the Northeast Assembly recently considered legislation to vest greater control over domestic policy in the Regional government. To what extent to you support, or oppose, this effort?

I'm not inherently opposed to some form of the devolution, but the major issue at hand before we even consider where exactly to go in that direction is that it's pretty clearly unconstitutional at this point. If there is a concerted push for federalism in the Northeast government and regional Representatives can come up with a reasonable plan, I would definitely be willing to push that on their behalf in the Senate. That said, we have a long way to go before we can reach that point.

[Talleyrand]

If I remember correctly, the Senate did play a fairly assertive role in responding with humanitarian force to the troubles in Ukraine, and I think wherever possible, we should be proactive in providing humanitarian aid to nations and peoples under threat. As for the Puertos Santos situation, it is my understanding that we currently have a military embargo in place (although not from the Senate) and that we are awaiting further updates on the situation. Overall, I don't think I can say any more than that I think the Senate should act on a case-by-case basis, although in general I am very very cautious about using direct military force, as evidenced by previous conflicts we've gotten ourselves embroiled in.

[Talleyrand]

I'm not sure what the Senate itself can do, but our national security agencies have generally been taking the correct steps to alleviating and ending these horrific situations. To rebuild the communities affected by these groups, I would support appropriating any funds necessary in cooperation with local and regional governments to restore any damaged infrastructure and the like. I think that the bill by Senator Polnut which is about to pass the Senate might actually assist in some of the scenarios.