Talk:United States Senate/Archive 3

November 2, 2010
Looks like this article, and the US House of Representatives Article, is definitely ready for a "change". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.202.197 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Chamber
... leads to a blank page. 86.178.9.171 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It appears just fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal
There is no mention of how to remove a senator, aside from the body impeaching them. Doesn't this make them almost invincible? How do we the people remove a senator that we know to be grossly incompetent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.191.175 (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fourteenth amendment does mention the removal of senators if they engage in rebellion or give aid. However, the only logical way is to vote. --Monterey Bay (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

IL should be purple
In the map depicting party identity of Senators by state, Illinois needs be turned from blue to purple to reflect Senators Durbin (D) and Kirk (R). 137.165.210.121 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Senority
The "Seniority" section should be updated to reflect the changes made after the 2010 election cycle, per the rankings within the extended article on seniority. For instance, Sen. Harkin is now 11th most senior while Sen. Bennett is 81st most senior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.80.41 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for vote on Non NPOV Claim in article
The statement:

"The Senate is often described by Americans as the "world's greatest deliberative body."

is considered to be Not a Neutral Point of View. The presence of the weasel words "... often described by Americans ..." serves only to justify the inclusion of a controversial opinion, not a proveable fact. The citations quoted are only citations of the opinion and not of the fact (and in any case would seem to be some of the Americans in point. Wikipedia is an encyclpedia and as such has a policy of not including material that is not written from a Neutral Point of View (See NPOV).

The vote is therefore, do youn agree that the sentence "The Senate is often described by Americans as the "world's greatest deliberative body." be included in the article. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Sentence fails the NPOV requirement. Practically all non Americans disagree with the claim anyway. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove Sentence For the record this is a straw poll and not a vote as Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have argued on this topic before and still believe the sentence is to POV and the addition to the sentence is weasel worded. The sentence should be in a separate section in the article if included in the article at all. I say remove the sentence form the article and have argued my point on this before so will not dredge them back up again.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that the sentence has been reworded, but in my view, it still fails the NPOV test. 86.176.156.193 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just a nickname for the Senate. Disneyland might not be the happiest place on Earth in everyone's mind, but it can still be called that. 72.211.211.3 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What's missing from the article is the important information that this phrase is usually used ironically and derisively in the American media. Modify or remove. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As currently worded, it is fact and reliably sourced; that the statements are opinion can be noted, but find a source, then include it. 75.203.65.141 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed that the phrase is still in the lede. Has anyone checked the sources cited? They all quite clearly are deriding the notion that the Senate is the "world's greatest deliberative body," something that is not at all apparent in the lede. It's time for someone to get the history of the phrase, then note that today the phrase is, at the very least, often used to mock the Senate. If anyone says the phrase without irony these days, I'd be surprised. Canada Jack (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Murkowski
Because Lisa Murkowski is no longer a Republican, the article should probably show that, including a different color for Alaska in the maps. There are now 3 independents, 2 who caucus with the Democrats, and 1 who caucuses with the Republicans. 192.135.179.248 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a tough question. Murkowski did not receive the official Republican nomination in the Alaska Senate race, but has she ever officially left the party?  I don't see where being a write-in candidate makes her not a member of the Party.  This is distinctly different than Bernie Saunders, for example, who is a declared independent.  Has Murkowski ever declared herself to be an independent, or formally left the Republican party?  -- Jayron  32  21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This similar to Joe Liberman who failed to gain the democratic nomination in Connecticut, but he is not listed as a democrat as he founded his own party Connecticut for Liberman. I have not heard of any sources stating Murkowski has left the republican party or joined another party. It would have been the same as Arlen Specter winning as a write-in in Pennsylvania. Specter lost the democratic primary but never left the party so if he had won by write in he would have still been a democrat although not the democrat which won the primary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * She is still a Republican, until she or the Republican party say otherwise, and you can source it; that she won as a write-in candidate does not change that, though in some other states it would. 75.204.2.197 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful with the citations
There are a number of citations to USGovInfo.com. That site redirects to usgovinfo.about.com, so the citation itself is a little misleading and using the about.com subdomain would be more informative as to the source of the citation. In any case, about.com largely took that information from www.senate.gov, so perhaps that should be the citation used instead, as the U.S. Senate website is more authoritative than about.com.

See, e.g., http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml and http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satinlatin (talk • contribs) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section
There should be one. The Senate is one of the most disproportional (since Wyoming with 563.626 people and California with 37 million people have an equal say in it) legislative assemblies in the world and because of that one could argue, also one of the most undemocratic. Richard N. Rosenfeld makes a good case about it here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/05/0080035

Although a majority of americans would not agree with him (they might however if they would read his article), he still lists some valid points which could be included in a criticism section. If no one objects I will tackle this issue.


 * No criticism section exists, making it challenging to figure out where to post updates to this page which aren't either neutral or promotional. Congress has had an all time low approval rating twice now in the past 10 months, it needs to be mentioned in this article. There is probably a better place than the lead WP:Lede, but the article doesn't give way to a new section for approval ratings, that I can see. Hopefully someone more acquainted with this article can figure out a solution.  petrarchan47  t  c   01:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some members of the American media
I removed the following passage again "The Senate has been described by some members of the American media as the 'world's greatest deliberative body'." (1) the same could be said for every legislative body in the world, that the local media thinks it's great, (2) one of the citations is for The Economist, which is, the last time I checked, not American. (3) one of the four citations is for the British Journal of Political Science. (4) why is it important at all what "some members of the American media" think? Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The way the title is framed sucks, quite frankly. It should be something closer to "is sometimes derisively called the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" Hot Stop UTC 04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And here are some sources for that

Yeah, we had this discussion a while ago. Far from being the "world's greatest deliberative body" the Senate has been more frequently described, at least in the last 100 years, as an ossified institution more interested in clinging to arcane traditions and rituals and blocking legislation then addressing the great issues of the days. One need only read Robert Caro's The Master of the Senate to have this point underlined.

Indeed, we don't have to limit ourselves by just looking at the references noted by Hot Stop. Try the ones cited for the phrase in the lede. It should be obvious to all (except to those who have trouble with the concept of "sarcasm") that 3 of the 4 references (the British Journal link doesn't show us the actual quote) are mocking the phrase, suggesting the precise opposite of what most would take as the meaning of the phrase "world's greatest deliberative body".

Time to remove the phrase or, as Hot Stop more sensibly suggests, note the Senate is more frequently called "world's greatest deliberative body" derisively. Canada Jack (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"More prestigious" than the House?
The source linked in footnote #5 does not actually argue--let alone prove--that the Senate is more prestigious than the House of Representatives. I think the statement that the Senate is "more prestigious" than the House should be removed unless a better source can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.218.209 (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be updated for 2012 elections
I don't know enough about editing to try, though I want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayokitty (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Until January 3, the senators in office before the election remain in office. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since January 3 is less than two hours away, I went ahead and updated the info box with 113th Congress information. (It was partially updated anyway.)
 * HowardMorland (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The new term begins at noon ET on January 3. -Rrius (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough, but the article is about the Senate in general. The infobox illustrates the Senate of one particular Congress.  The infobox is clearly labeled as to which Congress it is illustrating.  Ten thousand people looked at the article yesterday, and I am guessing that most of them were more interested in the 113th Congress than in the 112th.  (A lot of people have probably been confused by the line in the infobox that says the most recent election was in November, 2012.)  Anyway, this will all be moot in a few hours.  HowardMorland (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article's statement about the current state of affairs should reflect reality, not what editors guess readers might care about. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Senate Logo is incorrect. It does not have a Santa hat... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.205.12 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. -Rrius (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Back when I was in school if some one in the class did something wrong the hole class had a punishment,,,,,,,,,well I m 65 years old, I am an aldult,,,,,,I served my country as a marine grunt,,,,,to the rank of sgt,,,,,I lead men in combat,,,,,now in your thinking you have the right to infringe on my rights, an my constitution on the 2nd amend. Because of a few nuts, millions of law bidding americans are surpossed to give up thrie rights,,because of your liberal thinking,,,,,,,,,,,these nuts don't go shoot up police stations because they have guns,,,,,,,they go to schools because they are gun free zones,,,,,,,,,easy thinking even for a group like you,,,,,,,,,,,,my father was a marine, landed. At Saipan an got stuck with a gap baynotte,,,,,his BROTHE was a marine flew out of pearl with marine air wing as tail gunner,,,n Jim jone was an officer in fox company n I was a sgt in echo company,,,,an I have purple heart,,,,,,this is my country an it does not belong to only you,,,,,,,,an you are not my king, dictator, owner,,,,,,,,,leave me alone,,,,,,you are not my god,,,,,,an my rights were not given to me by any of you,,,,,,,I have earned my rights ,,,,,how many of you have earned yours,,,,,,,,leave my 2 nd amend. Alone. ,,,,,,,it was not put there so I could duck hunt ,,,,it was for my protection from you, my government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.25 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment about "nuclear option"
Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Links
Change in senate procedure (Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).

"World's greatest deliberative body" sources
Should it be noted that both sources cited seem to use this term sarcastically? --220.239.109.57 (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I checked each of the sources; the Time magazine articles is 20-years-old, and the other two use the term with no little sarcasm. The Economist article in fact openly mocks this idea, noting that each party never talk to one other.
 * There is little to no evidence supporting the assertion that the US Senate is the "World's greatest deliberative body". Such a term is partisan and lacking neutrality. How is possible to call a political institution 'great' without any reasoning? Maybe the Australian Senate is greater? Or the British House of Lords? Or the French Sénat? I am removing this arcane, biased, and inaccurate phrase. Crazy Eddy (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was still ther. I just removed it(Lihaas (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).

Omission
The first sentence in the History section says: "The framers of the created a ..." Framers of what?192.249.47.204 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Composition of Senate US map
Angus King from Maine is (I), but he caucuses with the Democrats, therefore the color should be blue/green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd4069 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Today's Elections
Excuse my changes made today, apparently they are to be made during inauguration at the beginning of 2015. At least I've learnt from this :) Redflorist (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious, why are the two current independents listed under Majority? Todd (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the two independents caucus with the Democrats. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doh! Thank you for taking the time to respond. Todd (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2015
Mansand80000 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mansand80000. The majority leaders don't change until the Senate convenes on Tuesday, so I think we should wait until then to update the article. meamemg (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015
theres something incorect new session did not start on January 3, 2013 it started on January 3, 2015

Mansand80000 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the previous session. The new session will begin tomorrow (6 Jan 2015). Alakzi (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding my edit summary
I was going by memory, but it seems Congress uses session to mean legislative period as well. At any rate, the day should be the third. Alakzi (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How to make colored dot partisan seating arrangements?
Hi. I'm a friendly anon with one problem: I have to create a multicolored seating arrangement for a club that I'm in. Which program would one use to make something like the dot-like seating arrangement on this Wikipedia page and others? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.116.138 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if the image were generated, but it's just a graphic. Pick your favorite graphics program and start pasting in dots.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Independents?
As we all must know, (in case you read news) Sanders is now a Democrat, officially. When will the change come in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.253.211 (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be changed as soon as possible, this article has been out of date since 2015 AvRand (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

veterans benefits
Did Senator Inhofe vote against a bill in regard to benefits for veterans? 207.41.127.106 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-member officers
Hey, isn't there some kind of stenotypist recording all that's being spoken, like a Court reporter ? What's the exact terminology ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are known as the Report of Debates, however they are not, technically speaking, an "officer". meamemg (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks; shouldn't that appear somewhere in the article, although not in the "officers" section ? It's still not there, as seen by searching for "report". --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
Hey since Bernie Sanders switched political parties and is now a Democrat, should that change the numbers of democrats, republicans and independents in the senate? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources I could find are based on figures immediately after elections. We should follow their lead, though, per WP:NOR. I would support maybe putting a note in the infobox that this is based on figures immediately after elections. How has this situation been handled in the past? Mz7 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there has been a case where it wasn't clear what party a Senator was a member of. I'm inclined to follow the lead of  or, which both list "I-VT".  Additionally, his pages at , , and  describe him as an independent. meamemg (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard he will officially run as a Democrat in future elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.34.222 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this. Please do not change articles without establishing consensus.  meamemg (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From Nov 5: "I am running as a Democrat obviously, I am a Democrat now.” How much clearer does it need to be? --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly. Why not just include a statement that Sanders' status changes according to his moods? Count him as 0.5 Dem and 0.5 other. Half blue, half pink. WHPratt (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

World's greatest?
The notion "world's greatest deliberative body" is not a worldwide view but only exists within the United States (two cited references are American, the other is British but it is a summary of a piece in the New Yorker by an American author). Therefore this view is subjective and should either be marked as such in the article, or be removed altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Per89 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The text currently describes it as "sometimes known as" . How are you suggesting to make it more clear that it is subjective? meamemg (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sometimes" is a very vague term and refers to time, not location. In this case there is a specific geographic limitation to the use of the term "world's greatest", namely within the U.S., therefore I suggest this phrase be changed to "In the U.S., the Senate is sometimes referred to as..." Per89 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Go for it. (Also, remember that you when adding new sections to talk pages, they generally should go at the bottom, not the top).  meamemg (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"First-past-the-post" verses "Plurality"
We say "Plurality" in American English. I changed the infobox to reflect that.
 * https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/first_past_the_post
 * https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/plurality.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.171.199 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

45 or 46?
37 + 9 = 46 ≠ 45. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this came about. Shoddy math. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Vice President
In the picture of the seats in the senate, shouldn't there be one additional seat for the Vice President since they are part of the senate and can vote when there is a tiebreaker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought that at one point too. In fact, I was going to open the file in MS Paint and add a large red circle near the bottom of the picture to represent the vice president, but then I saw that it was made using this tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/parliamentdiagram/parliamentinputform.html This has all the Senators in an arch but no option to include the vice president. NASAPeepo (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5uplUoEZt?url=http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm to http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606033250/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry: Does "Motion to Proceed (to Consider)" merit its own section?
With the recent news about the U.S. Senate addressing health care reform, one of the Senate's procedural tools - Motion to Proceed to Consider - has received a great deal of attention lately,  and understandably so, given the importance of the issue of health care. Is this parliamentary procedure more important than might be presumed from the fleeting attention given to it by mainstream media? Specifically, even if it doesn't meet the criteria for notability in order to merit its own Wikipedia page, is it sufficiently important and distinct from various other Senate procedural tools to at least merit a separate section?

This matter would be best answered by those familiar with parliamentary procedures, especially the procedures used by the U.S. Senate. I am purely a STEM guy, so I don't meet that standard for relevant expertise. I only stumbled upon this topic when I kept seeing MTP in twitter and failing to connect it with current events. Once I figured out what MTP stood for, I added it to the first section in the MTP disambiguation page. I was going to leave it at that, but later saw a twitter thread by Adam Jentleson, former deputy chief-of-staff for retired Senator Harry Reid and an expert on Senate procedural matters, which suggested the MTP has a more interesting (recent) history than I had first realized. But whether MTP is sufficiently notable and important to merit at least a section here, and/or on other pages such as that for parliamentary procedures or motions in particular, is something I simply don't have a feel for. Thanks in advance for any input anyone wants to offer. Sharl928 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My inclination is that an entire section is excessive. It is one of many procedural hurdles and devices that exist in the Senate.  Offering amendments and filling the "amendment tree" is another one that comes to mind.  Procedure in committees and subcommittees is another.  I think a couple of sentences may be most appropriate (similar in length, or shorter, as compared to the discussion on "holds").  The other option would be a fork to an article on Senate Procedure. meamemg (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response; it's the kind of input I was hoping for. I read the text on the Main Page that covers holds, references to which I've encountered far more in news outlets than motion to proceed. Based on my own experience as a non-expert news consumer, MTP is considerably less notable than the Senate's hold procedure. On that basis I see insufficient merit to add mention of the MTP to the Main Page, unless it is something very brief (per your recommendation). I'll keep this page on my Watchlist for a few weeks, but otherwise don't plan on taking further action. Sharl928 (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

INFOBOX at upper right needs to be corrected
Some of the numbers in the upper right INFOBOX under the Subheading "Structure" are incorrect: it should be 52 for Majority and Republicans (not 56); 48 for Minority (not 44); and 46 for Democratic (not 44). The 2 for Independents is OK as is. The same information in the main body of the article - under Section 7.1, Current Party Standings - is correct as is.

I about made these corrections on my own, but saw a note in that section of the Edit page to first bring suggestions of changes here to Talk first, so here I am. Sharl928 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching. The note was due to lots of editors changing it based on counting Sanders as a Democrat, which he never was officially for the Senate. meamemg (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101145605/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719174041/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40421_20090310.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40421_20090310.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Stating the WP:OBVIOUS
Hey, could someone take the time to make an edit somewhere that clearly states that Senators do not have any actual districts? It's indirectly alluded (i.e. when comparing them to at-large districts), but otherwise pretty much the entire encyclopedia just plainly assumes this is common knowledge. I've been interested in US politics for a good while and I only figured this out today, so I think it's safe to say it's not. Circéus (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon first consideration I thought the second paragraph covered this sufficiently, but upon reconsideration I realized that as a U.S.-born, raised and educated citizen, I am not the best judge of how someone with a non-U.S. background might have an issue here. For consideration I've provided (below) some alternative wording for that second paragraph (italics for existing text to be replaced by text in bold). Any suggestions for better proposed wording is welcome, as is input from those who think that no changes are needed.
 * Current wording -
 * ...The Senate is composed of senators who represent each of the states, with each state being equally represented by two senators,...
 * Proposed new wording -
 * ...The Senate is composed of senators, each of whom represents a single state in its entirety, with each state being equally represented by two senators,...
 * Sharl928 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed change was incorporated into the Main Article. Sharl928 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

When is "senator" capitalized?
Besides at the beginning of a sentence and as a salutation, when should "senator" be capitalized in this article? I see a mixture with predominant use of "senator". However, "U.S. Senator" appears in the lede. Someone please clarify proper usage and make any fixes required. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * MOS:JOBTITLES provides the rules for when it should be capitalized. In this article, it generally isn't.  At a glance, it looks like most of the instances where it is capitalized (other than before the name of a senator or at the beginning of a sentence) are improper. meamemg (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that "U.S. Senator" is correct, according to: . Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Orlando and Mawson isn't Wikipedia's style guide, and this is something that will have different answers depending on the style used. Why would it by "U.S. Senator", but "French president" (per MOS:JOBTITLES)? meamemg (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Prior to searching for a style on this issue, I would have advocated for "U.S. senator". However, I can see that "U.S. Senate" could logically transform to "U.S. Senator", whereas there is no institutional equivalent that can give its name to presidents. However, note that President of the United States uses "president" throughout, unless it's talking about "the U.S. President". I didn't find a style guide that contradicted the one that I found. I would happily see this source of style contradicted and superseded by the MOS:JOBTITLES standard. User:HopsonRoad 03:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Absences and Vacancies?
With 100 seats, is 51 votes or 50 votes plus the vote of the Vice President always necessary to pass a bill in the senate? How do absences and vacancies affect the ability of the senate to pass a bill? SlowJog (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have clarified that it is a majority of those present that determines the outcome of a vote on a motion. User:HopsonRoad 02:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected Page - Information missing
It was the senate of the United States of America which voted both

1) against the admission to the "Völkerbund"

2) against ratification of the contract of "Versailles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.0.201 (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. If you have a suggestion for text to add to the article, please propose specific language, including citations to reliable sources, and where in the article you suggest adding it.  Thanks! meamemg (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Senate member graphic
svg representing the count of seats, on the right side, needs to be updated to 51R, 47D, 2I (caucuses with Democrats).
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Title of former president who becomes a senator?
Isn't there a title for a former president who becomes a senator? 97.84.188.235 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015
The United States Senate is a legislative chamber in the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the U.S. House of Representatives makes up the U.S. Congress.

First convened in 1789, the composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each state is represented by two senators, regardless of population, who serve staggered six-year terms. The Senate chamber is located in the north wing of the Capitol, in Washington, D.C. The House of Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building.

The Senate has several exclusive powers not granted to the House, including consenting to treaties as a precondition to their ratification and consenting to or confirming appointments of Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, other federal executive officials, military officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers, as well as trial of federal officials impeached by the House. The Senate is widely considered to be both a more deliberative and more prestigious  body than the House of Representatives, due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies, which historically led to a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere. The Senate is sometimes called the "world's greatest deliberative body," sometimes pejoratively.

History
The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress primarily as a compromise between those who felt that each state, since it was sovereign, should be equally represented, and those who felt the legislature must directly represent the people, as the House of Commons did in Britain. There was also a desire to have two Houses that could act as an internal check on each other. One was intended to be a "People's House" directly elected by the people, and with short terms obliging the representatives to remain close to their constituents. The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government. The Senate was thus not intended to represent the people of the United States equally. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation.

The Senate of the United States was formed on the example of the ancient Roman Senate. The name is derived from the senatus, Latin for council of elders (from senex meaning old man in Latin).

James Madison made the following comment about the Senate:
 * In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability.

The Constitution stipulates that no constitutional amendment may be created to deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent. The District of Columbia and all other territories are not entitled to representation in either House of the Congress. The District of Columbia elects two shadow senators, but they are officials of the D.C. city government and not members of the U.S. Senate. The United States has had 50 states since 1959, thus the Senate has had 100 senators since 1959.

The disparity between the most and least populous states has grown since the Connecticut Compromise, which granted each state two members of the Senate and at least one member of the House of Representatives, for a total minimum of three presidential Electors, regardless of population. In 1787, Virginia had roughly 10 times the population of Rhode Island, whereas today California has roughly 70 times the population of Wyoming, based on the 1790 and 2000 censuses. This means some citizens are effectively two orders of magnitude better represented in the Senate than those in other states. Seats in the House of Representatives are approximately proportionate to the population of each state, reducing the disparity of representation.

Before the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures. However, problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators.

Qualifications
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) they must be at least 30 years old, 2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past 9 years, and 3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election. The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison justified this arrangement by arguing that the "senatorial trust" called for a "greater extent of information and stability of character."

The Senate (not the judiciary) is the sole judge of a senator's qualifications. During its early years, however, the Senate did not closely scrutinize the qualifications of its members. As a result, three senators who failed to meet the age qualification were nevertheless admitted to the Senate: Henry Clay (aged 29 in 1806), Armistead Thomson Mason (aged 28 in 1816), and John Eaton (aged 28 in 1818). Such an occurrence, however, has not been repeated since. In 1934, Rush D. Holt, Sr. was elected to the Senate at the age of 29; he waited until he turned 30 (on the following June 19) to take the oath of office. In November 1972, Joe Biden was elected to the Senate at the age of 29, but he reached his 30th birthday before the swearing-in ceremony for incoming senators in January 1973.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution disqualifies from the Senate any federal or state officers who had taken the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engaged in rebellion or aided the enemies of the United States. This provision, which came into force soon after the end of the Civil War, was intended to prevent those who had sided with the Confederacy from serving. That Amendment, however, also provides a method to remove that disqualification: a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress.

Elections and term
Originally, senators were selected by the state legislatures, not by popular elections. By the early years of the 20th century, the legislatures of as many as 29 states had provided for popular election of senators by referendums. Popular election to the Senate was standardized nationally in 1913 by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Term
Senators serve terms of six years each; the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the seats are up for election every two years. This was achieved by dividing the senators of the 1st Congress into thirds (called classes), where the terms of one-third expired after two years, the terms of another third expired after four, and the terms of the last third expired after six years. This arrangement was also followed after the admission of new states into the union. The staggering of terms has been arranged such that both seats from a given state are not contested in the same general election, except when a mid-term vacancy is being filled. Current senators whose six-year terms expire on January 3, 2015, belong to Class II.

The Constitution set the date for Congress to convene—Article 1, Section 4, Clause 2 originally set that date for the third day of December. The Twentieth Amendment, however, changed the opening date for sessions to noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. The Twentieth Amendment also states that Congress shall assemble at least once in every year and allows Congress to determine its convening and adjournment dates and other dates and schedules as it desires. Article 1, Section 3 provides that the President has the power to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions at his discretion.

A member who has been elected, but not yet seated, is called a "senator-elect"; a member who has been appointed to a seat, but not yet seated, is called a "senator-designate".

Elections
Elections to the Senate are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years, Election Day, and coincide with elections for the House of Representatives. Senators are elected by their state as a whole. In most states (since 1970), a primary election is held first for the Republican and Democratic parties, with the general election following a few months later. Ballot access rules for independent and minor party candidates vary from state to state. The winner is the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote. In some states, runoffs are held if no candidate wins a majority.

Mid-term vacancies
The Seventeenth Amendment requires mid-term vacancies in the Senate to be filled by special election. If a special election for one seat happens to coincide with a general election for the state's other seat, each seat is contested separately. A senator elected in a special election takes office as soon as possible after the election and serves until the original six-year term expires (i.e. not for a full term).

The Seventeenth Amendment also allows state legislatures to give their governors the power to appoint temporary senators until the special election takes place. The official wording provides that "the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct".

As of 2009, forty-six states permit their governors to make such appointments. In thirty-seven of these states, the special election to permanently fill the U.S. Senate seat is customarily held at the next biennial congressional election. The other nine states require that special elections be held outside of the normal two-year election cycle in some or all circumstances. In four states (Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming) the governor must appoint someone of the same political party as the previous incumbent.

Oregon and Wisconsin require special elections for vacancies with no interim appointment, and Oklahoma permits the governor to appoint only the winner of a special election. In September 2009, Massachusetts changed its law to enable the governor to appoint a temporary replacement for the late Senator Kennedy until the special election in January 2010. In 2004, Alaska enacted legislation and a separate ballot referendum that took effect on the same day, but that conflicted with each other. The effect of the ballot-approved law is to withhold from the governor authority to appoint a senator. Because the 17th Amendment vests the power to grant that authority to the legislature – not the people or the state generally – it is unclear whether the ballot measure supplants the legislature's statute granting that authority. As a result, it is uncertain whether an Alaska governor may appoint an interim senator to serve until a special election is held to fill the vacancy.

The temporary appointee may run in the special election in his or her own right.

Oath
The Constitution requires that senators take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Congress has prescribed the following oath for new senators: "I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Salary and benefits
The annual salary of each senator, as of 2013, is $174,000; the president pro tempore and party leaders receive $193,400. In June 2003, at least 40 of the then-senators were millionaires.

Along with earning salaries, senators receive retirement and health benefits that are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service. Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of their salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under CSRS was $60,972, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $35,952.

Political prominence
Senators are regarded as more prominent political figures than members of the House of Representatives because there are fewer of them, and because they serve for longer terms, usually represent larger constituencies (the exception being House at-large districts, which similarly comprise entire states), sit on more committees, and have more staffers. Far more senators have been nominees for the presidency than representatives. Furthermore, three senators (Warren Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama) have been elected president while serving in the Senate, while only one Representative (James Garfield) has been elected president while serving in the House, though Garfield was also a Senator-elect at the time of his election to the Presidency, having been chosen by the Ohio Legislature to fill a Senate vacancy.

Seniority
According to the convention of Senate seniority, the senator with the longer tenure in each state is known as the "senior senator"; the other is the "junior senator". This convention does not have official significance, though it is a factor in the selection of physical offices. In the 114th Congress, the most-senior "junior senator" is Barbara Boxer of California, who was sworn in on January 3, 1993 and is currently 11th in seniority, behind Dianne Feinstein who was sworn in on November 4, 1992 and is currently 10th in seniority. The most-junior "senior senator" is Deb Fischer of Nebraska, who was sworn in January 3, 2013, and is currently 84th in seniority, ahead of senator Ben Sasse who was sworn in January 3, 2015 and is currently 99th in seniority.

Expulsion and other disciplinary actions
The Senate may expel a senator by a two-thirds vote. Fifteen senators have been expelled in the history of the Senate: William Blount, for treason, in 1797, and fourteen in 1861 and 1862 for supporting the Confederate secession. Although no senator has been expelled since 1862, many senators have chosen to resign when faced with expulsion proceedings – for example, Bob Packwood in 1995. The Senate has also censured and condemned senators; censure requires only a simple majority and does not remove a senator from office. Some senators have opted to withdraw from their re-election races rather than face certain censure or expulsion, such as Robert Torricelli in 2002.

Majority and minority parties
The "Majority party" is the political party that either has a majority of seats or can form a coalition or caucus with a majority of seats; if two or more parties are tied, the vice president's affiliation determines which party is the majority party. The next-largest party is known as the minority party. The president pro tempore, committee chairs, and some other officials are generally from the majority party; they have counterparts (for instance, the "ranking members" of committees) in the minority party. Independents and members of third parties (so long as they do not caucus with or support either of the larger parties) are not considered in determining which is the majority party.

Seating
The Democratic Party traditionally sits to the presiding officer's right, and the Republican Party traditionally sits to the presiding officer's left, regardless which party has a majority of seats. In this respect, the Senate differs from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and other parliamentary bodies in the Commonwealth of Nations and elsewhere.

Officers
The Vice President of the United States presides over the Senate, but the party leaders have the real power and they control procedure. Many non-member officers are also hired to run the day-to-day functions of the Senate.

Presiding over the Senate
The Vice President of the United States is the ex officio President of the Senate, with authority to preside over the Senate's sessions, although he can vote only to break a tie. For decades the task of presiding over Senate sessions was one of the vice president's principal duties. Since the 1950s, vice presidents have presided over few Senate debates. Instead, they have usually presided only on ceremonial occasions, such as joint sessions, or at times when a tie vote on an important issue is anticipated. The Constitution authorizes the Senate to elect a president pro tempore (Latin for "president for a time") to preside in the vice president's absence; the most senior senator of the majority party is customarily chosen to serve in this position. Like the vice president, the president pro tempore does not normally preside over the Senate, but typically delegates the responsibility of presiding to junior senators of the majority party, usually in blocks of one hour on a rotating basis. Frequently, freshmen senators (newly elected members) are asked to preside so that they may become accustomed to the rules and procedures of the body.

The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the Senate chamber. The powers of the presiding officer of the Senate are far less extensive than those of the Speaker of the House. The presiding officer calls on senators to speak (by the rules of the Senate, the first senator who rises is recognized); ruling on points of order (objections by senators that a rule has been breached, subject to appeal to the whole chamber); and announcing the results of votes.

Party leaders
Each party elects Senate party leaders. Floor leaders act as the party chief spokespeople. The Senate Majority Leader is responsible for controlling the agenda of the chamber by scheduling debates and votes. Each party elects an assistant leader (whip) who works to ensure that their party's senators vote as the party leadership desires.

Non-member officers
The Senate is served by several officials who are not members. The Senate's chief administrative officer is the Secretary of the Senate, who maintains public records, disburses salaries, monitors the acquisition of stationery and supplies, and oversees clerks. The Assistant Secretary of the Senate aids the secretary in his or her work. Another official is the Sergeant at Arms who, as the Senate's chief law enforcement officer, maintains order and security on the Senate premises. The Capitol Police handle routine police work, with the sergeant at arms primarily responsible for general oversight. Other employees include the Chaplain, who is elected by the Senate, and Pages, who are appointed.

Daily sessions
The Senate uses Standing Rules of the Senate for operation. Like the House of Representatives, the Senate meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. At one end of the chamber of the Senate is a dais from which the presiding officer presides. The lower tier of the dais is used by clerks and other officials. One hundred desks are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern and are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Republicans sit to the right of the center aisle and Democrats to the left, facing the presiding officer. Each senator chooses a desk based on seniority within the party. By custom, the leader of each party sits in the front row along the center aisle. Sessions of the Senate are opened with a special prayer or invocation and typically convene on weekdays. Sessions of the Senate are generally open to the public and are broadcast live on television, usually by C-SPAN 2.

Senate procedure depends not only on the rules, but also on a variety of customs and traditions. The Senate commonly waives some of its stricter rules by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent agreements are typically negotiated beforehand by party leaders. A senator may block such an agreement, but in practice, objections are rare. The presiding officer enforces the rules of the Senate, and may warn members who deviate from them. The presiding officer sometimes uses the gavel of the Senate to maintain order.

A "hold" is placed when the leader's office is notified that a senator intends to object to a request for unanimous consent from the Senate to consider or pass a measure. A hold may be placed for any reason and can be lifted by a senator at any time. A senator may place a hold simply to review a bill, to negotiate changes to the bill, or to kill the bill. A bill can be held for as long as the senator who objects to the bill wishes to block its consideration.

Holds can be overcome, but require time-consuming procedures such as filing cloture. Holds are considered private communications between a senator and the Leader, and are sometimes referred to as "secret holds". A senator may disclose that he or she has placed a hold.

The Constitution provides that a majority of the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business. Under the rules and customs of the Senate, a quorum is always assumed present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. A senator may request a quorum call by "suggesting the absence of a quorum"; a clerk then calls the roll of the Senate and notes which members are present. In practice, senators rarely request quorum calls to establish the presence of a quorum. Instead, quorum calls are generally used to temporarily delay proceedings; usually such delays are used while waiting for a senator to reach the floor to speak or to give leaders time to negotiate. Once the need for a delay has ended, a senator may request unanimous consent to rescind the quorum call.

Debate
Debate, like most other matters governing the internal functioning of the Senate, is governed by internal rules adopted by the Senate. During debate, senators may only speak if called upon by the presiding officer, but the presiding officer is required to recognize the first senator who rises to speak. Thus, the presiding officer has little control over the course of debate. Customarily, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are accorded priority during debates even if another senator rises first. All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, who is addressed as "Mr. President" or "Madam President", and not to another member; other Members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, senators do not refer to each other by name, but by state or position, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia", "the gentlewoman from California", or "my distinguished friend the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee". Senators address the Senate standing next to their desk.

Apart from rules governing civility, there are few restrictions on the content of speeches; there is no requirement that speeches be germane to the matter before the Senate.

The rules of the Senate provide that no senator may make more than two speeches on a motion or bill on the same legislative day. A legislative day begins when the Senate convenes and ends with adjournment; hence, it does not necessarily coincide with the calendar day. The length of these speeches is not limited by the rules; thus, in most cases, senators may speak for as long as they please. Often, the Senate adopts unanimous consent agreements imposing time limits. In other cases (for example, for the budget process), limits are imposed by statute. However, the right to unlimited debate is generally preserved.

Filibuster and cloture
The filibuster is a tactic used to defeat bills and motions by prolonging debate indefinitely. A filibuster may entail long speeches, dilatory motions, and an extensive series of proposed amendments. The Senate may end a filibuster by invoking cloture. In most cases, cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senate; however, if the matter before the Senate involves changing the rules of the body – this includes amending provisions regarding the filibuster – a two-thirds majority is required. In current practice, the threat of filibuster is more important than its use; almost any motion that does not have the support of three-fifths of the Senate effectively fails. This means that 41 senators, which could represent as little as 12.3% of the U.S. population, can make a filibuster happen. Historically, cloture has rarely been invoked because bipartisan support is usually necessary to obtain the required supermajority, so a bill that already has bipartisan support is rarely subject to threats of filibuster. However, motions for cloture have increased significantly in recent years.

If the Senate invokes cloture, debate does not end immediately; instead, it is limited to 2 additional hours unless increased by another three-fifths vote. The longest filibuster speech in the history of the Senate was delivered by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for over 24 hours in an unsuccessful attempt to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Under certain circumstances, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 provides for a process called "reconciliation" by which Congress can pass bills related to the budget without those bills being subject to a filibuster. This is accomplished by limiting all Senate floor debate to 20 hours.

Voting
When debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. The Senate often votes by voice vote. The presiding officer puts the question, and Members respond either "Yea" (in favor of the motion) or "Nay" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. A senator, however, may challenge the presiding officer's assessment and request a recorded vote. The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the senators present. In practice, however, senators second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. When a recorded vote is held, the clerk calls the roll of the Senate in alphabetical order; senators respond when their name is called. Senators who were not in the chamber when their name was called may still cast a vote so long as the voting remains open. The vote is closed at the discretion of the presiding officer, but must remain open for a minimum of 15 minutes. If the vote is tied, the vice president, if present, is entitled to cast a tie-breaking vote. If the vice president is not present, the motion fails.

Bills which are filibustered require a three-fifths majority to overcome the cloture vote (which usually means 60 votes) and get to the normal vote where a simple majority (usually 51 votes) will approve the bill. This has caused some news media to confuse the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster with the 51 votes needed to approve a bill, with for example USA Today erroneously stating "The vote was 58-39 in favor of the provision establishing concealed carry permit reciprocity in the 48 states that have concealed weapons laws. That fell two votes short of the 60 needed to approve the measure".

Closed session
On occasion, the Senate may go into what is called a secret or closed session. During a closed session, the chamber doors are closed, cameras are turned off, and the galleries are completely cleared of anyone not sworn to secrecy, not instructed in the rules of the closed session, or not essential to the session. Closed sessions are rare and usually held only when the Senate is discussing sensitive subject matter such as information critical to national security, private communications from the president, or deliberations during impeachment trials. A senator may call for and force a closed session if the motion is seconded by at least one other member, but an agreement usually occurs beforehand. If the Senate does not approve release of a secret transcript, the transcript is stored in the Office of Senate Security and ultimately sent to the national archives. The proceedings remain sealed indefinitely until the Senate votes to remove the injunction of secrecy.

Calendars
The Senate maintains a Senate Calendar and an Executive Calendar. The former identifies bills and resolutions awaiting Senate floor actions. The latter identifies executive resolutions, treaties, and nominations reported out by Senate committee(s) and awaiting Senate floor action. Both are updated each day the Senate is in session.

Committees
The Senate uses committees (and their subcommittees) for a variety of purposes, including the review of bills and the oversight of the executive branch. Formally, the whole Senate appoints committee members. In practice, however, the choice of members is made by the political parties. Generally, each party honors the preferences of individual senators, giving priority based on seniority. Each party is allocated seats on committees in proportion to its overall strength.

Most committee work is performed by 16 standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a field such as finance or foreign relations. Each standing committee may consider, amend, and report bills that fall under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, each standing committee considers presidential nominations to offices related to its jurisdiction. (For instance, the Judiciary Committee considers nominees for judgeships, and the Foreign Relations Committee considers nominees for positions in the Department of State.) Committees may block nominees and impede bills from reaching the floor of the Senate. Standing committees also oversee the departments and agencies of the executive branch. In discharging their duties, standing committees have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses and evidence.

The Senate also has several committees that are not considered standing committees. Such bodies are generally known as select or special committees; examples include the Select Committee on Ethics and the Special Committee on Aging. Legislation is referred to some of these committees, although the bulk of legislative work is performed by the standing committees. Committees may be established on an ad hoc basis for specific purposes; for instance, the Senate Watergate Committee was a special committee created to investigate the Watergate scandal. Such temporary committees cease to exist after fulfilling their tasks.

The Congress includes joint committees, which include members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Some joint committees oversee independent government bodies; for instance, the Joint Committee on the Library oversees the Library of Congress. Other joint committees serve to make advisory reports; for example, there exists a Joint Committee on Taxation. Bills and nominees are not referred to joint committees. Hence, the power of joint committees is considerably lower than those of standing committees.

Each Senate committee and subcommittee is led by a chair (usually a member of the majority party). Formerly, committee chairs were determined purely by seniority; as a result, several elderly senators continued to serve as chair despite severe physical infirmity or even senility. Committee chairs are elected, but, in practice, seniority is rarely bypassed. The chairs hold extensive powers: they control the committee's agenda, and so decide how much, if any, time to devote to the consideration of a bill; they act with the power of the committee in disapproving or delaying a bill or a nomination by the president; they manage on the floor of the full Senate the consideration of those bills the committee reports. This last role was particularly important in mid-century, when floor amendments were thought not to be collegial. They also have considerable influence: senators who cooperate with their committee chairs are likely to accomplish more good for their states than those who do not. The Senate rules and customs were reformed in the twentieth century, largely in the 1970s. Committee chairmen have less power and are generally more moderate and collegial in exercising it, than they were before reform. The second-highest member, the spokesperson on the committee for the minority party, is known in most cases as the ranking member. In the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee on Ethics, however, the senior minority member is known as the vice chair.

Recent criticisms of the Senate's operations object to what the critics argue is obsolescence as a result of partisan paralysis and a preponderance of arcane rules.

Legislation
Bills may be introduced in either chamber of Congress. However, the Constitution's Origination Clause provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives". As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, when the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures.

Although the Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respect of spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote:

"The Senate's right to amend general appropriation bills has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character."

The approval of both houses is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by sending amendments back and forth or by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.

Checks and balances
The Constitution provides several unique functions for the Senate that form its ability to "check and balance" the powers of other elements of the Federal Government. These include the requirement that the Senate may advise and must consent to some of the president's government appointments; also the Senate must consent to all treaties with foreign governments; it tries all impeachments, and it elects the vice president in the event no person gets a majority of the electoral votes.

The president can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of most federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, a large number of government appointments are subject to potential confirmation; however, Congress has passed legislation to authorize the appointment of many officials without the Senate's consent (usually, confirmation requirements are reserved for those officials with the most significant final decision-making authority). Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. The majority of nominees are confirmed, but in a small number of cases each year, Senate committees will purposely fail to act on a nomination to block it. In addition, the president sometimes withdraws nominations when they appear unlikely to be confirmed. Because of this, outright rejections of nominees on the Senate floor are infrequent (there have been only nine Cabinet nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States).

The powers of the Senate concerning nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the Constitution provides that the president may make an appointment during a congressional recess without the Senate's advice and consent. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nevertheless, presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States, although the Senate's advice and consent is required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal.

The Senate also has a role in ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the president may only "make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." However, not all international agreements are considered treaties under US domestic law, even if they are considered treaties under international law. Congress has passed laws authorizing the president to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the president may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some scholars such as Laurence Tribe and John Yoo to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, courts have upheld the validity of such agreements.

The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial. During an impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.

In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (One resigned before the Senate could complete the trial.) Only two presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate has the power to elect the vice president if no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Electoral College deadlocks are rare. In the history of the United States, the Senate has only broken a deadlock once. In 1837, it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The House elects the president if the Electoral College deadlocks on that choice.

Current party standings
The party composition of the Senate during the 113th Congress (since the October 31, 2013 swearing-in of Democratic Sen. Cory Booker):

113th Congress
The 113th United States Congress will run from January 3, 2013 to January 3, 2015.
 * List of bills in the 113th United States Congress
 * Acts of the 113th United States Congress

Official Senate histories
The following are published by the Senate Historical Office.
 * Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–1989
 * Robert Byrd. The Senate, 1789–1989. Four volumes.
 * Vol. I, a chronological series of addresses on the history of the Senate
 * Vol. II, a topical series of addresses on various aspects of the Senate's operation and powers
 * Vol. III, Classic Speeches, 1830–1993
 * Vol. IV, Historical Statistics, 1789–1992
 * Dole, Bob. Historical Almanac of the United States Senate
 * Hatfield, Mark O., with the Senate Historical Office. Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789–1993 (essays reprinted online)
 * Frumin, Alan S. Riddick's Senate Procedure. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992.

plane crash in ethopia
This killed a lot of people Bostey (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Color of parties
The colors depicted for the Republican and Democratic Parties does not reflect the actual party color shades. The colors shown are darker. Should we consider changing this? These are the colors we currently have These are the colors on the 2 parties wiki pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs) 09:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
This Article for the united states senate needs to be edited to remove the vandalism from Fullmetal2887

The United States Senate was formerly the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—comprised the legislature of the United States. It died on January 31, 2020, when senators from the Republican Party refused to stand up to a corrupt autocrat calling himself the president of the United States, refusing to hear testimony that said individual blackmailed Ukraine in order to cheat in the 2020 presidential election.

Needs to be

The United States Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives—the lower chamber—comprised the legislature of the United States.

Wikipedia needs to be a non partisan Site. Wikipedia does not allow business to use there site for advertising and promoting this what I call the article written by Fullmetal2887 Snowflake2020 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The vandalism has been reverted, thanks for pointing it out. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is ongoing. I have requested that page protection be raised. NedFausa (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
The section that outlines the oath that senators take should include: The fact that senators take this oath does not mean that they follow it, and in fact on 1/31/2020 the Republican Senate proved that they have no interest in this oath or the Constitution of the United States when they moved to dismiss the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump while admitting publicly that they believed he is guilty as charged. 97.116.76.135 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The United States Senate was formerly the upper chamber of the United States Congress, which, along with the United States House of Representatives ― the lower chamber ― comprised the legislature of the United States. It died on January 31, 2020, when senators from the Republican Party refused to stand up to a corrupt autocrat calling himself the president of the United States, refusing to hear testimony that said individual blackmailed Ukraine in order to cheat in the 2020 presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8502:C3D0:4878:84FA:1994:C8C4 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020
The United States Senate has been contaminated by the POTUS and no longer represents the American People. AS of January 31, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lchigh123 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You must cite WP:RS for such a grave allegation. NedFausa (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandal, Flyboyrob2112 is James Halperin. https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1223795319944679426 Original post from Halperin https://twitter.com/BruceHalperin/status/1223316704408694784 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.200.111 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg FALSE. You've linked to a tweet by James O'Keefe, who is an American conservative political activist, not a vandal. NedFausa (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)