And Me!!!!

Planet Debate
{File Name}
Page 1 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013
1NC ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Uniqueness Immigration Specific........................................................................................................... 7 A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms ................................................................................................................ 8 General................................................................................................................................................ 12 Top of the Docket................................................................................................................................ 16 A2: No Vote ......................................................................................................................................... 17 A2: Public Backlash / 07 Proves ......................................................................................................... 18 A2: Not Until 201................................................................................................................................ 20 A2: Obama Involvement Backfires ...................................................................................................... 21 A2: Guest Workers/Low Skill Workers ................................................................................................ 23 A2: Border Security ............................................................................................................................. 25 A2: Path to Citizenship ........................................................................................................................ 27 Uniqueness -- Thumpers ......................................................................................................................... 30 A2: All Thumpers ................................................................................................................................. 31 A2: Obama Pushing Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 39 A2: Debt Ceiling Thumper ................................................................................................................... 40 A2: Obamas Alt NRG Fund ................................................................................................................. 41 A2: EPA Rules ...................................................................................................................................... 47 A2: Keystone ....................................................................................................................................... 48 A2: Rusteccia Thumper ....................................................................................................................... 51 A2: Budget Thumper ........................................................................................................................... 52 A2: Perez Thumper.............................................................................................................................. 54 A2: Guns Thumper .............................................................................................................................. 56 A2: UN Arms Treaty ............................................................................................................................ 59 A2: EPA Standards ............................................................................................................................... 60 A2: DOMA Court Ruling ...................................................................................................................... 64 A2: Appointment Thumpers ............................................................................................................... 65 A2: Fights............................................................................................................................................. 66 A2: Tax Thumper ................................................................................................................................. 67 A2: PC Low .......................................................................................................................................... 68 1NC Impact Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 70 Biodefense 1NC Impact ....................................................................................................................... 71 Biotech Good 1NC Impact ................................................................................................................... 73 Agriculture 1NC Impact ....................................................................................................................... 75 Hegemony 1NC Impact ....................................................................................................................... 77 1 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
India 1NC Impact ................................................................................................................................. 79 Economy 1NC Impact .......................................................................................................................... 80 Cyberterror 1NC Impact ...................................................................................................................... 82 Deficit 1NC Impact .............................................................................................................................. 84 Defense Industrial Base 1NC Impact ................................................................................................... 87 Turns case/More Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 89 Turns China Economy.......................................................................................................................... 90 Turns Hegemony ................................................................................................................................. 91 Turns Warming.................................................................................................................................... 94 Turns Climate Leadership.................................................................................................................... 98 Turns Space ......................................................................................................................................... 99 Turns Navy ........................................................................................................................................ 100 Turns Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Turns China Cooperation .................................................................................................................. 102 Agriculture Impact Extensions .............................................................................................................. 103 Immigration Reform Key to Food Security........................................................................................ 104 Food Security Impact ........................................................................................................................ 105 Biotech Impact Extensions .................................................................................................................... 106 Visas Key to Biotech Workers ........................................................................................................... 107 Biotech Key to GM Crops .................................................................................................................. 108 GM Crops Key to Biodiversity ........................................................................................................... 110 Biodiversity Impact ........................................................................................................................... 111 Hegemony Impact Extensions............................................................................................................... 112 Immigration Key to Hegemony ......................................................................................................... 113 Economy Impact Extensions ................................................................................................................. 115 Reform Key to Economy.................................................................................................................... 116 Our Economy Internal Link is Bigger ................................................................................................. 120 A2: Global Economy Resilent ............................................................................................................ 121 US Key to Global Economy ................................................................................................................ 124 Biodefense Impact Extensions .............................................................................................................. 126 Immigration Reform Key to Biodefense............................................................................................ 127 Bioterror Risk High ............................................................................................................................ 129 Bioweapons Outweigh War .............................................................................................................. 130 India Impact Scenario Extensions ......................................................................................................... 132 Reform Key to Relations ................................................................................................................... 133 2 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: relations resilient ........................................................................................................................ 134 India-Pakistan War Impacts .............................................................................................................. 136 Cyberterrorism Impact Extensions ....................................................................................................... 138 Cyberterror Attacks Because of Worker Shortage............................................................................ 139 Cyberterror Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 141 AT: Cyber Attacks Fail........................................................................................................................ 143 General Links ......................................................................................................................................... 144 Executive Action Links ....................................................................................................................... 145 Agency Links ...................................................................................................................................... 146 Spending Link .................................................................................................................................... 148 Military Links ..................................................................................................................................... 150 Delay Link .......................................................................................................................................... 151 Energy Policy Links ............................................................................................................................ 152 Renewable Energy Links.................................................................................................................... 159 Link Reduction in Environmental Regulations ............................................................................... 162 A2: Plan Popular ................................................................................................................................ 163 A2: Bipartisan/Doesnt Spend $ ........................................................................................................ 164 Internal Links ......................................................................................................................................... 165 Reform Includes STEM Workers ....................................................................................................... 166 A2: Skilled Workers Will Inevitable Get In ........................................................................................ 167 A2: Too Watered Down .................................................................................................................... 169 Political Capital Key to Immigration Reform ..................................................................................... 171 Capital Key Right Now .................................................................................................................... 174 Capital Key Wage Dispute .............................................................................................................. 177 Single Package Key to Passage .......................................................................................................... 178 A2: Obama Not Involved ................................................................................................................... 179 A2: Obama Involvement Bad ............................................................................................................ 181 AT: Obama Executive Order Solves ................................................................................................... 182 AT: Hirsch PC Irrelevant .............................................................................................................. 185 A2: lynch............................................................................................................................................ 189 Lynch 2011, ....................................................................................................................................... 189 AT: PC Renewable ............................................................................................................................. 190 Political Capital Finite........................................................................................................................ 192 AT: No Spill-Over ............................................................................................................................... 193 A2: No Spillover (Berger)................................................................................................................... 196 3 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Winners-Win ............................................................................................................................... 199 Theory & Kritik ...................................................................................................................................... 202 AT: Should Ignore Politics DA ............................................................................................................ 203
4 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
1NC
Obama is using all of his PC immigration, it will pass CT Post 3/28 (Immigration reform gaining support in Congress,
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Immigration-reform-gaining-support-in-Congress-4393187.php) A Republican Party in desperate search for relevance to Latino voters. An expanded Democratic advantage in the Senate. A second-term President with his legacy on the line. Does all that add up to enough to break decades of impasse and produce c omprehensive i mmigration r eform? As expectations - and tensions -- rise,
the answer won't be long in coming . A bipartisan bill could be filed in the Senate as
early as next week, followed in relatively short order by a House bill, also crafted by a bipartisan group , aiming at a compromise on the key issue of citizenship. The efforts are being applauded by President Barack Obama, who is using every ounce of his political clout to try to get comprehensive reform. Obama said the time has
come "to work up the political courage to do what's required to be done." "I expect a bill to be put forward. I expect a debate to begin next month. I want to sign that bill into law as soon as possible," Obama said at a White House naturalization ceremony. In addition to the issue of eventual citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, Congress is expected to address the need for temporary or guest worker programs. Congress last passed comprehensive bipartisan reform legislation in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan signed a law that granted citizenship to several million undocumented immigrants and created a guest worker program. Up until now, Republicans have opposed citizenship programs as an "amnesty" for lawbreakers who entered the country illegally, and labor has chafed at guest worker programs. But
Republican losses in the 2012 elections and increased public support for reform have many in the GOP talking compromise. "If there is one issue that the two parties could produce something meaningful on in this Congress, it would be immigration," said Stephen Hess, a political expert at The Brookings Institution.
Hess said an eventual bill "will have lots of provisos, and it will go back and forth, but it would be hard not to produce something given the general feeling that something has to be produced." More and more Republicans are moving toward immigration-reform measures as the party seeks to reach out to Latinos, the nation's largest -- and growing -- minority voting bloc. Public opinion is behind them. A recent poll showed 63 percent of Americans supported a path to citizenship for undocumented workers provided they meet certain requirements, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Notable
Republicans who have recently spoken in favor of compromise on citizenship proposals include Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour; and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. And a March
report by the National Republican Committee, considered a "post mortem" on the 2012 elections, recommended the GOP embrace comprehensive immigration reform to shore up its shaky standing with minorities -- Latinos, in particular. Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, which advocates lower numerical numbers on immigration, predicted
a majority of Republican senators would oppose citizenship. Groups like Numbers USA are working to hold GOP senators in line. They sent 13,000 emails to Kentucky
voters that claimed Paul's position was "more radical and pro-immigration than anything proposed by President Obama." The group has targeted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the "Gang of Eight" senators writing the Senate bipartisan bill, as a lawmaker who favors foreign workers over unemployed South Carolinians. Democrats from conservative-leaning states could also feel political heat. Beck said if five to 10 Democrats in the Senate oppose a bill, proponents would need 10 to 15 Republicans to reach the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and vote on legislation. "You do the math," Beck said. In 2007, an effort to cut off debate on a Senate immigration reform bill died on a 46-53 vote. But
immigrant reform proponents, such as America's Voice, say there is a "tectonic shift" in the GOP, and the Democrats also have expanded their Senate majority to 53-45, plus two independents who caucus with them. They predict the Senate will muster the votes necessary to pass a reform bill . Still, it won't be easy . "We will have not only a few potholes, but a few near-death experiences along the way," said
Frank Sharry, America's Voice executive director. All eyes are on Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican who like Paul was elected with Tea Party support. Cruz joined Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is up for re-election in 2014, in a measure to stall the fast-moving process in the Senate. Both say they oppose "amnesty." In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Texas Republicans urged the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to open up the legislative process with hearings. The
"Gang of Eight" senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -are expected to introduce their bill when Congress returns from Easter recess. Overall, the new Senate bill is
expected to grant undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship within 13 years, similar to a proposal put forth by the White House, according to those familiar with the discussions. Undocumented immigrants would have to pay fines, back taxes, learn English and have no
5 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
criminal record to work legally and become eligible for naturalization. Although no specific details have been released, senators involved in the process say the citizenship proposals would be contingent upon border-security benchmarks and high-tech measures to curb illegal crossings. Congress will return to an expected throng of thousands of immigrants, labor and immigrant rights supporters on the West Lawn of the Capitol next week. Advocates are also holding more than 200 events in 35 states during the congressional recess to rally support, said Sue Chinn, campaign manager for Alliance for Citizenship.
Plan drains capita(insert)l Capitals key

Michael Shifter, President, Inter-American Dialogue, "Will Obama Kick the Can Down the Road," REVISTE IDEELE, 12--27--12, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3186
Not surprisingly, Obama has been explicit that reforming the USs shameful and broken immigration system will be a top priority in his second term. There is every indication that he intends to use some of his precious political capital especially in the first year to push for serious change. The biggest lesson of the last election was that the Latino vote was decisive. No one doubts that it will be even more so in future elections. Dur ing the campaign, many Republicans -- inexplicably -- frightened immigrants with offensive rhetoric. But the day after the election, there was talk, in both parties, of comprehensive immigration reform . Despite the sudden optimism about immigration reform, there is, of course, no guarantee that it will happen. It will require a lot of negotiation and
deal-making. Obama will haveto invest a lot of his time and political capital -- twisting some arms, even in his own party. Resistance will not disappear. There is also a chance that something unexpected
could happen that would put off consideration of immigration reform. Following the horrific massacre at a Connecticut elementary school on December 14, for example, public pressure understandably mounted for gun control, at least the ban of assault weapons. But a decision to pursue that measure -- though desperately needed -- would take away energy and time from other priorities like immigration.
Insert impact scenario of choice

(see below)
6 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Uniqueness Immigration Specific
7 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms

Guest worker visa compromise could die and take the whole bill with it
Time, 4-8, 13, http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-over-thelow-skilled-worker-visa/
At the heart of a soon-to-be-released bipartisan compromise on immigration reform is a controversial proposal that would create several new government bureaus and offices to oversee a new generation of legal, low-skilled immigrantsas many as 200,000 a year when the program gets up and running. The proposal tries to address the ultimate cause of illegal immigration: not merely porous borders or unscrupulous employers, but the immutable fact that jobs here pay better here than ones back there. When Washington has tried to end illegal immigration in the past, Congress has ignored that simple labor market reality. This time, surprisingly, instead of trying to stop the illegal flow of low-skilled foreign workers to unfilled American jobs by increasing penalties and enforcement, the bipartisan bloc of Senators proposes to legalize it, in part. Under the terms of a deal struck between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Gang of Eight over Easter weekend, the bill would create a new, low-skilled worker visa: the W-visa. After listing a low-skilled job and receiving no acceptable American applicants, an employer could register to recruit a foreign worker. Entering the country for one job, a W-visa holder could legally change jobs immediately. Their initial employer could turn around and hire another W-visa holder the next day. What if a lowskilled worker decides he or she wants to stay? Holders of the W-visa could get on a path for citizenship after one year. Some immigration experts and economists view the bill as a historic breakthrough. Its thoughtful and innovative, says Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA., a pro-business immigration group. Supply and demand is going to generate a flow of *foreign low-skilled+ workers, says Jacoby, Its our choice whether we want them to come here legally or illegally. But even if the policy is right that doesnt mean the politics are, and the W -visa already seems to have as many enemies as friends, even among the groups that negotiated it. On the left, some unions are unhappy with the proposal because unemployment is still high and they think the W-visa will only keep it that way. They believe punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants will ultimately force employers to raise wages to make low-skilled jobs more attractive to American citizens. Some business groups, for their part, says the program is flawed not because it lets in too many immigrants, but because it doesnt let in enough. The program would start by issuing 20,000 W-visas per year, then move up to 75,000 after four years. New offices at the Labor Department and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services would oversee a complicated program to determine when and whether it climbs to an upper limit of 200,000. Pro-business groups say 350,000 low skilled illegal workers came to the U.S. every year from 2003-09. If the number of W-visas dont satisfy labor market demand, they say, other immigrants will come in illegally to fill the gap, undermining the W-visa program. For their part, conservatives fighting to reduce the massive government growth of the last ten years oppose the new federal offices. The bills biggest opponents are those who believe rising immigration is
8 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
a drag on the American economy and way of life. Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates for lower levels of immigration, says the W-visa amounts to an admission of failure. What the Senators have done, she says, is throw up their hands and say we cant control illegal immigration anyway, so were going to hand out visas like candy to everyone who wants to come and work. The bills authors have tried to address many concerns by splitting the difference. Business gets the structure of a low-skilled worker program, but unions get a limit on the numbers and cap of 200,000 in the out years. Jobs must be offered to American citizens first. For those convinced border security is the answer, other parts of the reform bill call for that, as well as a crack down on businesses that hire undocumented labor. Its possible the momentum for immigration reform will be enough to overcome opposition to the W-visa. There are plenty of conservatives, like Mississippis Haley Barbour, who join liberals in supporting a low-skilled worker visa. It is just as possible, though, that the W-visa will die, and it could take the entire immigration reform package with it. Either way, say the W-visa advocates, low-skilled workers will find their way to the U.S. in search of unfilled jobs.
If it doesnt pass by a large amount in the Senate it wont pass in the House
Indian Express, 4-8, 13, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/key-us-senator-sees-deal-this-week-onimmigration/1099271/2
Graham sounded optimistic overall, predicting the bill would pass the 100-member Senate with 70 votes in favor. Senators believe an overwhelming bipartisan vote is needed in the Democratic-led Senate to ensure a chance of success in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Ill pass now but its not guaranteed

UPI 3-31 (United Press International, The Issue: Immigration reform: Time ripe for sweeping reform)
President Obama again has called on Congress to act on sweeping immigration reform, saying he expects legislation to be introduced in April and debate on it soon after. The bipartisan Gang of Eight senators -- four Republicans and four Democrats -- has been working on a what could be the blueprint for broad reform that includes, among other things, a path for the more than 11 million undocumented people now in the United States to reach legal status, as well as calls for improving border security. Obama used the swearing-in ceremony of 28 new U.S. citizens at the White House Monday to urge Congress to "finish the job" of overhauling immigration laws. "Immigration makes us stronger," Obama said. "We've known for years that our immigration system is broken. ... After avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all." Immigration reform has been a flashpoint issue raising hackles for both parties in Congress and several administrations. And this congressional session is no different. The Senate's bipartisan deal on immigration could stall because of a dispute over a new guest-worker program, exposing major differences between interest groups crucial to the overhaul's success, The Washington Post reported. At issue? Rules governing the "future flow" of migrants who come to the United States for low-paying jobs. Citing business interests, Republicans want to give temporary work visas to as many as 400,000 mostly minimum-wage foreign workers a year. But unions - and Democrats -- say they're concerned about the impact on U.S. workers and they want fewer foreign workers and higher pay under the program. The senators' efforts also would eliminate some categories of visas for extended family members, people familiar with negotiations told the Post. Still, now seems 9 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
the most likely time to get something done on immigration reform -- and the reasons go beyond the prominence of the Latino vote in the 2012 presidential election and how the vote broke overwhelmingly Democratic. "Something else changed," said Katherine Fennelly, an immigration specialist at the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. "It's the strength and strengthening of some of the advocates and coalitions that are speaking more with one voice than they have in past." Even with labor-based disagreements about the guest worker program, "there's still conversation and these groups are speaking much more with one voice than the past," Fennelly said. This increased camaraderie has been noticed by the Senate, she said. And the House is watching to see how much bipartisanship the Senate's blueprint actually garners when it becomes legislation. Also, there are the 2014 mid-term elections to consider. Congress has to get "some movement, some kind of resolution, before it get too close to election," she said, noting that she wouldn't have believed such a statement was possible as recently as October, when she and others analyzed votes on immigration going back to 1993 and found that most were procedural issues or one party blocked proposals made by the other party. "We need comprehensive immigration reform, not piecemeal legislation," Fennelly said. "People disagree about what the nature of the change should be but almost no one disagrees that we have a broken system."
Bill could unravel, Hispanic voting power doesnt guarantee passage

Monterey City Herald, 4-8, 13, http://www.montereyherald.com/national/ci_22980952/obamasdomestic-agenda-line-this-week
The White House is far more confident about the prospects for a sweeping immigration deal that could provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of people who now are in the country, tighten border security and crack down on businesses that employ people illegally. But the president is treading carefully on the sensitive issues, wary of disrupting a bipartisan Senate working group that has been laboriously crafting a bill. The group of four Republicans and four Democrats could unveil that legislation as early as this week, a pivotal development that would open months of debate. While the growing political power of Hispanics may have softened the ground for passage, significant hurdles remain.
Passage isnt assured theres still disagreement in the GOP

Ferrechio 3-22 (Susan, Chief Congressional Correspondent, "President Obama turns up the pressure for
immigration reform," Washington Examiner, washingtonexaminer.com/obama-turns-up-the-pressurefor-immigration-reform/article/2525387) But prospects for passage are far from assured , in part because many Republicans are wary of any bill that proposes a pathway to citizenship, which many in the GOP consider a form of amnesty for people who are living here illegally. The House, run by Republicans, is working on its own plan that is likely to be far less open to the idea of citizenship than the Senate bill. Republicans will also have to grapple with two pending studies, by the conservative Heritage Foundation and Harvard University, that will address the high cost of immigration reform and its impact on low-wage earners, according to sources familiar with the reports. Some Republicans have argued that providing legal status or citizenship for illegal immigrants would swamp the entitlement system, adding trillions to its cost and going against the GOP agenda of smaller and less expensive government.
Failure to reach an agreement about path to citizenship is the only thing that could derail immigration
Sargent 3-22 (Greg, "A bait and switch on immigration reform," Washington Post,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/22/a-bait-and-switch-on-immigration-reform/) 10 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Im not buying it. My guess is that whats really going on here is that Republicans need to be able to say they were not to blame if the right ultimately doesnt allow them to reach a deal with Democrats on the real core issue the path to citizenship. This isnt to say there arent genuine sticking points over the guest worker program. There are. As Buzzfeed documents, there are a range of proposals demanded by labor that some Republicans particularly in the House may balk at, such as an annual cap on low wage work visas; barring work visas for much of the construction industry, and a trigger that would only allow work visas once unemployment here fell below a certain level. Another sticking point is that the AFL-CIO and other unions want assurances that employers who bring workers in through the program will have to pay above median salary for the industry. But the big picture here is what really matters . And the big picture is this: Congressional Republicans know they are going to have to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, if they are going to blunt the destructive impact that ongoing demographic shifts are already having on the party. All the other sticking points are essentially sideshows . The main question that is central to the hopes of any deal is whether Republicans will be able to cross the path-to-citizenship Rubicon. This isnt the first time something like this has happened. Back in February, a White House immigration plan that would provide a faster path to citizenship than Republicans want leaked to the press, prompting Republicans to angrily question Obamas motives, while claiming that he risked killing hopes for any reform. But that became less tenable after pro-reform Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham met with Obama and declared that they thought he sincerely understood GOP needs in the talks. Meanwhile, anti-reform politicians are trying to instill fear in Republican officials who are willing to cross that path-to-citizenship Rubicon. GOP Rep. Steve King yesterday warned that Republicans who embrace citizenship are on notice: I think theres going to be a constituent backlash against this thing soon, as they see it moving in that direction. Labor officials I spoke with today dont even believe that theres any real chance the whole deal will collapse, no matter how much the right rages. They believe Republicans know they must embrace citizenship to ensure the partys survival, and are making noise about unions threatening the deal in order to win more concessions. Whether or not thats true, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that the only question that really matters is whether Republicans will ultimately be able to accept citizenship. If they can, it seems clear that other peripheral issues will get resolved.
11 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
General
Immigration will pass, gun control politics wont block it
ABC News, 4-11, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17704423-first-thoughts-whyimmigration-reform-has-a-better-chance-than-guns?lite
NBC/WSJ poll on why immigration reform has a better chance of passage than gun control The more details GOPers hear about a path to citizenship, the more they support it But GOP respondents overwhelmingly oppose stricter gun laws NRAs opposition to Manchin-Toomey doesnt add up Its not just progressives who are attacking Chained CPI -- NRCC Chair Walden is, too Waldens attack explains 1) why reforming entitlements is so difficult, and 2) why it hurts the GOPs credentials in being serious about entitlement reform And more NBC/WSJ poll: Obamas approval drops to 47%, and sequester appears to have limited impact (so far). Senate compromise
ABC News, 4-11, http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17704423-first-thoughts-whyimmigration-reform-has-a-better-chance-than-guns?lite In other political news, the so-called Gang of Eight bipartisan group of senators continues to finalize its compromise immigration-reform legislation, which is expected to be released in the coming days.
Labor issues resolved

Reuters, 4-11, 13http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-usa-immigrationidUSBRE93A00W20130411 Senators negotiating an immigration bill have reached agreement on wages for foreign farm laborers working in the United States and a limit on visas for such workers, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said on Thursday. Feinstein, of California, refused to provide details on the agreement and said there were some other issues related to farm workers still to be negotiated. "We have an agreement on wages and the visa cap," Feinstein told Reuters. The farm worker portion of the bill is seen as the last major bit to be negotiated before Senate legislation is introduced in coming days.
Security issues resolved

Fox News, 4-10, 13, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/senate-immigration-plan-wouldstiffen-border-security-increase-surveillance/
12 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A bipartisan group of senators finalizing a landmark immigration bill has agreed to require greatly increased surveillance of the border and apprehensions of people trying to cross it, a person familiar with the proposals said Wednesday. The legislation, to be released within days, would call for surveillance of 100 percent of the U.S. border with Mexico and apprehension of 90 percent of people trying to cross in certain high-risk areas. People living here illegally could begin to get green cards in 10 years but only if a new southern border security plan is in place, employers have adopted mandatory electronic verification of their workers' legal status and a new electronic exit system is operating at airports and seaports.
Immigration deal now

Indian Express, 4-8, 13, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/key-us-senator-sees-deal-this-week-onimmigration/1099271/ A noisy debate over the flawed US immigration system begins in earnest this week as senators finalise a bipartisan bill to secure the border, allow tens of thousands of foreign workers into the country and grant eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million people living here illegally. Negotiators warned of struggles ahead, but all involved are optimistic that it's time to make the biggest changes to the nation's immigration laws in more than a quarter-century. "There will be a great deal of unhappiness about this proposal because everybody didn't get what they wanted," Republican Sen. John McCain, a leader of the eight senators negotiating the legislation, said yesterday on CBS. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, another of the eight senators involved, told CBS he's hoping for a bipartisan deal by the end of this week. In a bitterly divided Congress, the immigration bill appears to be one of the few major pieces of legislation that is likely to receive bipartisan support and become law. For many opposition Republicans, their loss in last year's presidential election, when Latino and Asians voters backed President Barack Obama in big numbers, resonates as evidence that they must confront the immigration issue. "Every corner of the Republican Party... is now understanding there has to be an earned pathway to citizenship," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said. A deal on immigration is a top priority for Obama in his second term, and senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said yesterday on Fox that the bill being developed in the Senate is consistent with Obama's approach.
Issues resolved
Reuters, 4-8, 13, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-08/news/38374059_1_guestworker-program-senator-charles-schumer-earned-pathway
A bill to overhaul the US immigrationsystem would likely be completed by the end of this week, two senior US senators said on Sunday. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York said that senators in the bipartisan " Group of Eight" have resolved all major issues in a pending deal and that their staffs are putting the bill into legislative language.
Immigration will pass, but status quo is goldilocksObamas behind-the-scene PC is key
13 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Sink 3-26 (Justin, Correspondent, After Taking Hit in the Polls, Obama Pivots Back to Immigration
Reform, The Hill, 2013, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/290249-after-taking-hit-in-thepolls-obama-pivots-back-to-immigration) The White House hopes to bolster President Obamas political standing by shifting attention from the bruising budget battles of the last month to immigration reform and gun control. Democrats welcome the pivot after watching Obamas standing in polls fall amid fights with Congress over the budget and the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester. They see immigration and gun reform as a better playing field for Obama that could provide political wins for the president. What the public wants to see right now is him achieving things, leading, said Tad Devine, a former strat egist to Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Gore. For him, there's real opportunity on all these fronts, and realistically in the next six months, he can have progress he can bring back to the American people. On gun control, Obama will travel the country to
bolster the case for strengthening background checks on gun purchases. Obama is expected to play an active role in the looming Senate fight over what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has described as the sweet spot of legislation. A poll released Friday from Quinnipiac University shows that 88 perce nt of respondents support an expansion of background checks on new weapons purchases. Other provisions banning straw sales and improving gun research programs and school security funding garner similarly commanding poll advantages. "There actually is a lot of strong support for the proposals that the president has put forward, whether it's universal background checks, whether it is, you know, outlawing gun trafficking or straw purchasers," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "There's even some support out there in the public for the assault weapons ban." Yet, the assault weapons ban doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate, and neither does background checks unless a bipartisan deal is reached. Immigration
is a better issue for the president, partly because a
growing number of Republicans want to pass a bill in the 113th Congress. While Republicans in Congress had little reason to negotiate with Obama on preventing the sequester, they do have reason to offer concessions on immigration. "Immigration reform in particular is something clearly that Latinos and the American public as a whole signaled they
wanted in the last election, and Republicans ought to get on the right side of that issue," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "It doesn't seem like complicated math, and Republicans
are basically deciding, do they want to be a House-based party, or do they want to be a national party that competes for the presidency and competes for the control of the Senate?" Moreover, immigration reform which
failed in the George W. Bush administration would be Obama's most significant legislative achievement behind healthcare reform. If the administration were able to get an immigration bill that looked anything like comprehensive immigration reform after President Bush had failed on it, President Clinton had failed on it, every president back to Reagan had failed, it would be a big deal, said Cal
Jillson, a political science professor at Southern
Methodist University. Democrats are worried that Obama hasn't had a lot of signing ceremonies in 2013 as unresolved budget battles have hit the
president's approval ratings. Obama's healthy post-election advantage on the economy has dwindled into a virtual tie with congressional Republicans. Voters equally blame Obama and the GOP for the sequester, which is expected to hit in full force in the coming weeks. It goes back to a sense in Washington that th ings aren't getting done, Devine said. No matter whose fault that is, when you're president, the buck stops here. Obama
faces a delicate high-
wire act on guns and immigration: Claim too much ownership for an issue, and swing-state Republicans who had been considering working with the White House might buck; Sit too far back , and risk losing steam on policy initiatives or allowing Republicans to take credit. In both of those policy areas, the president is involving himself carefully, allowing what appears to be some momentum in Congress to manage the issues, Jillson said. The president's involvement is modest, if not behind the scenes, because there is still enough post-election bad blood among the House GOP that direct presidential involvement drives away support.
Capital will win votes for immigration. THE HILL 3 15 -1 3 [Obama support group off to sluggish start,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/288305-obama-support-group-off-to-sluggish-start] Obama sees the group as having the potential to reverse a pivotal mistake from his first term, when Obama feels he failed to harness the enthusiasm of his campaign to promote his policy agenda.
Theres some worry the window for OFAs success might have already begun to close. With slipping popularity and congressional Republicans retrenching for another round of budget fights, Obamas
once bountiful
post-election political capital is being gradually depleted.

But OFA supporters argued that rather than being derailed by the political circumstances, the group was the answer to the problem.
14 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign who led one of the summits seminars, noted Thursday that more than one million Americans have already taken action through OFA to urge members of Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety measures, and policies that will strengthen the middle class. President Obama told the group that their efforts may give space here in Washington to do the kind of work hopefully bipartisan work that's required. "This is what inside Washington doesn't get about outside Washington, said the former administration official. They're thinking about this strictly in terms of process. But it's about how you engage these folks. If you went on and knocked on doors because you're into climate change, you're going to do it on an off year. A Democratic operative also argued that the groups nonprofit status which prevents it from explicitly partisan, electoral activity would actually aid the group in its mission to forward the presidents agenda. Four years ago we tried to construct OFA as an organization with dual missions -- electing Democrats and passing the presidents policies -and we may have bit off more than we could chew, he said. There's ample need for an organization wholly dedicated to passing this ambitious agenda. Even donors who acknowledged the group was off to a slow start predicted that just as the campaign heated up, so will OFA. " When
the president really starts to push these issues like immigration , that's when you're going to see this operation going at full speed, said one top Obama donor. This is why people elected the president. It wasn't necessarily about him but what he could do."
Immigration reform will pass soon because Obamas spending capital Castaldi 3-27 (Charles, Take Two | KPCC California Public Radio, March 27th, 2013, LA Archbishop
Gomez keeps Mahony's promise to push for immigration reform, President Obama said he expects Congress to introduce an immigration reform bill next month. The Los Angeles
Archdiocese has played a key role in advocating for change. Before he was stripped of his duties for mishandling sex abuse cases, Cardinal Roger Mahony was a leading voice on immigration reform. In 2010, Cardinal Mahony spoke to a crowd of thousands at the Washington mall at a rally in support for immigrants rights. Mahony promised the Catholic Church would stand beside immigrants in the fight for immigration reform. This was just one of many examples of his bringing his activism out to the street. Cardinal Mahony was very clear that he was going to use the pulpit and he was going to use the airwaves, says Angelica Salas, the executive director of CHIRLA, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. He was going to march with us, he was going to use whatever public space there was in order to get the word out. Salas says that Mahonys successor, Archbishop Jose Gomez, might not be speaking at rallies as much and certainly maintains a lower public profile, but he is very active in pushing for immigration reform. I was in a meeting with President Obama a couple of weeks ago at the White House with religious leaders, Gomez says. And we all came out of the meeting with the conviction that now is the time and that
the
president is committed to work on immigration reform . So we are enthusiastic about the possibility of an immigration
reform law soon. Gomez is the chairman of the Immigration Committee of US Catholic Bishops, which makes him a key voice on immigration matters not only in the church, but also in Washington as well. Both he and Salas agree that this
is a moment when theres a real chance to see an actual immigration reform bill come out of Congress, especially with the President as committed as he is . Lots of things have also changed even within the Obama administration, Salas
says. In 2010, I had the opportunity to meet with President Obama in much the same way that Archbishop Gomez did and at that time we were in a very different situation in which for the first time we were seeing deportations exploding. Something we were shocked to our core about. And so it was a different kind of engagement with our president." But since then, she has seen a change in tone from Washington. "Since that time and after a lot of pushing, he
has provided deferred action for childhood arrivals, (Obama) has opened up opportunities for prosecutorial discretion," Salas says. "I think that his entire team at every single level is now committed to making sure that immigration reform gets across the finish line. Public opinion on immigration has also shifted substantially since Mahony took up the cause more than 20 years ago.
Now, according to a recent USC/LA Times poll, about two-thirds of Californians support providing undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. According to Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant, Gomezs low key lobbying might be a better fit for the times.
15 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Top of the Docket

Top priority for Obama ensures quick passage Pace 3/25 (Julie, Obama calls for April debate on immigration bill,
http://www.myfoxla.com/story/21785836/obama-calls-for-april-debate-on-immigration-bill, )
President Barack Obama challenged Congress Monday to "finish the job" of finalizing legislation
aimed at overhauling the nation's immigration system. With members of the House and Senate away on spring break, Obama made his most substantive remarks on the difficult issue in more than a month, saying he expects lawmakers to take up debate on a quickly and that he hopes to sign it into law as soon as possible. "We
've known for years that our immigration system is broken," the president said at a citizenship ceremony at the White House. "After avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all." The president spoke at a ceremony for 28 people from more than two dozen countries, including Afghanistan, China and Mexico. Thirteen of the new citizens are active duty service members in the U.S. military. The oath of allegiance was administered by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. While Obama has hosted citizenship ceremonies in previous years, Monday's event was laced with politics, given the ongoing debate over immigration reform on Capitol Hill. A bipartisan group of eight senators is close to finishing draft work on a billthat would dramatically reshape the U.S. immigration and employment landscape, putting 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. The measure also would allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country.The
president applauded the congressional effort so far, but pressed lawmakers to wrap up their discussions quickly. "We've got a lot of white papers and studies," Obama said. "We've just got to, at this point, work up the political courage to do what's required."Immigration shot to the forefront of Obama's domestic agenda following the November election. Hispanics made up 10 percent of the electorate and
overwhelmingly backed Obama, in part because of the tough stance on immigration that Republicans took during the campaign.The election results spurred Republicans to tackle immigration reform for the first time since 2007 in an effort to increase the party's appeal to Hispanics and keep the GOP competitive in national elections.Obama and the bipartisan Senate group are in lockstep on the key principles of a potential immigration bill, including a pathway to citizenship, strengthening the legal immigration system, and cracking down on businesses that employ illegal immigrants. The White House has largely backed the Senate process, but says it has its own immigration bill ready if the debate on Capitol Hill stalls.
16 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: No Vote
vote in the next few weeks
NY Times 3/29. *The New York Times, newspaper, Business and Labor Said to Near Deal on Immigration
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/politics/guest-worker-program-low-skilled-immigrants.html?_r=1&]
WASHINGTON The
nations top business and labor groups are nearing agreement on a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, a final sticking point that had stalled negotiations late last week on a broad immigration overhaul, and are closing in on a deal that could come as early as Friday, according to officials involved in the talks. An agreement between the labor and business communities would clear one of the last hurdles for an overall deal on immigration legislation in the Senate, which the bipartisan group hopes to introduce early next month. We are very close, closer than weve ever been, said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of a bipartisan group of senators working on comprehensive immigration legislation. We are very optimistic, but there are a few issues remaining. The United States Chamber of Commerce and the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the nations main federation of labor unions, have been in discussions parallel to those of the Senate group, and have reached a tentative agreement about the size and scope of a temporary guest worker program,
which would grant up to 200,000 new visas annually for low-skilled workers. The labor-business talks came close to breaking down last Friday, on the eve of a twoweek Congressional recess, over the issue of what the pay levels should be for low-skilled immigrants, often employed at restaurants or on construction projects, who could be brought in when employers said they faced labor shortages. One of the last sticking points in the business-labor negotiations has been the specific type of jobs that would be excluded from the program. The nations construction unions, officials in the talks said, have suc ceeded in persuading the negotiators to exclude certain types of higher-skilled jobs including crane operators and electricians from the guest worker program. Eliseo Medina, the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union and one of labors most influential voices on immigration issues, said, We
may be very close to a point where the senators will have an announcement soon. One official involved in the talks said that the business
community was likely to see a number of visas that it considered satisfactory, while the agreement on wages pleased labor because it would not affect the labor market adversely. This official said that after the business-labor talks came close to breaking down last week, some union officials pressed the labor negotiators to show more flexibility to avoid having the momentum toward immigration reform break down over the guest worker issue. The official said that at the same time, some business leaders and Republican lawmakers pressed the Chamber to be more flexible on the guest worker issue so as not to derail the overall immigration overhaul. A lot of the fine details are still being hammered out, said the official, who insisted on anonymity because the business and labor representatives agreed to a news blackout about the talks. When President George W. Bush pushed to revamp the nations immigration laws in 2007, the inability of business and labor to agree on a plan for guest workers was one of the main reasons that effort failed. Tamar Jacoby, the president of ImmigrationWorks, a group that represents small businesses on immigrations matters, said business and labor had reached agreement on the highly contentious issue of how many guest workers would be admitted each year. The way its structured, it will start, according to press reports, at 20,000 visas a year, and it can grow as high as 200,000, but there is a formula that will allow it to grow and shrink according to economic needs, she said. Ms. Jacoby said that the formula agreed to was not flexible enough to meet the needs of specific industries in specific places. The number of guest workers allowed in would increase as the nations unemployment rate fell and the number of job openings i ncreased. A federal commission would also assess the need for guest workers, with an eye to shortages in specific industries and communities. It will work like an accordion, based on shortages, said one official involved in the talks. In the negotiations, officials said, business had pushed to pay guest workers the minimum wage, while the labor negotiations were demanding they be paid the median wage in the industries in which they would work. Two officials involved in the talks said there was a tentative agreement for guest workers to be paid the prevailing industry wage previously used in the guest worker program. These officials said that employers who experienced a labor shortage even after the national guest worker quota was filled could request a safety valve exemption to bring in workers, but at a higher wage rate than the prevailing wage while also paying addition al fees. Though the bipartisan group of senators left for their two-week break with their immigration negotiations stalled over the guest worker program, they have continued to work while Congress is out of session. On Wednesday, four of the groups members Senators Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado; Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona; John McCain, Republican of Arizona; and Mr. Schumer toured Nogales, Ariz., a city on the Mexican border. Speaking at a Chamber of Commerce event in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a member of the group, expressed confidence that the Senate would reach a full deal in the coming days. Were
sort of stuck on the ten-yard line, he said, but Im optimistic
well get a bill in the next few weeks.
17 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Public Backlash / 07 Proves

No public backlash --- newest polls prove
West 3-28 (Paul,- writer for the LA Times GOP primary voters not opposed to immigration reform)
WASHINGTON -- Conservative Republicans are open to an overhaul of the nations immigration system, including creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, according to a new report on voter attitudes in two states with early presidential contests. According to a Republican research group, recent discussions with Republican voters in Iowa and South Carolina indicated that conservatives are inclined to support the partys involvement in fixing immigration and may well reward potential presidential candidates, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who have taken a prominent role in that effort. Its clear that Senator Rubios presence in this debate creates a significant amount of goodwill among the Republican base, concludes a memo from Ed Gillespie, a former national Republican chairman, and pollster John McLaughlin, whose firm conducted the focus-group sessions. As one Des Moines woman said when commenting on a potential pathway to citizenship, Id like to see what Marco Rubio comes up with. I trust him. U.S. immigration law: Decades of debate Some prominent conservatives remain hostile to any efforts to grant legal status to the nations estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, arguing that such moves provide a form of amnesty that rewards illegal behavior. The focus-group findings appear in line with other recent survey research about voter attitudes on immigration, although the report merely provides an interpretation of the discussions. They were not open to monitoring by the news media, and its unknown if comments from the groups could have led to a different overall conclusion. The sponsoring organization, Resurgent Republic, is a moderate conservative organization. Its most prominent members are associated with a still-evolving effort to revive the Republican Party in the aftermath of popular vote losses in five of the last six presidential elections. President Obamas re-election victory, and Republicans shrinking support among non-white voters, is a seminal moment for conservatives, says the four-page memo. *I+mmigration reform should not be viewed as a one-step panacea guaranteeing Republican inroads among Hispanic voters. Yet it is a critically important step in a long-term effort. Securing the border as a first step in providing a pathway to legal citizenship for those already in the country was a prominent feature of the discussions with conservative Republican voters. Such triggers are a feature of legislation being drafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators that includes, in addition to Rubio, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. PHOTOS: Supreme Court considers gay marriage The report says immigration reform is not on the radar of the Republican base, but that GOP voters believe their party should not simply leave the issue to Democrats in Congress or President Obama. They also want any immigration reform plan to include tougher security on the borders, while barring undocumented immigrants from receiving welfare or other government benefits. Many, the report says, believe undocumented immigrants unfairly benefit today from taxpayer-funded services such as education, food stamps, and health care services, according to the report. This was one of the most frequently repeated themes in our groups, often generating more intensity than the pathway to citizenship discussion. Republicans can make the case to base supporters that immigration reform is needed in order to help correct abuses in the system. In presenting alternatives to the conservative base, Republican candidates should also highlight the benefits of legal immigration and make the case that a pathway to citizenship should be defined as a lengthy, rigid, and workable process that results in an earned status. It does not absolve wrongdoing. The report also notes that the phrase pathway to citizenship remains largely undefined, and that conservative Republican voters in Iowa and South Carolina did not have an immediate reaction equating the phrase to amnesty. 18 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Itll pass despite some public outcry --- 2 reasons

-Business lobbies are working together -They realized Hispanics are a key constituency Anupama 3-21 (Anupama,- Projects Editor for Real Time Investigations, a Sunlight Foundation project Immigration: Give me your poor, your tired . . . your lobbyists?) While the corporate sector, including powerful trade associations like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, are pushing for more open immigration policies, groups that helped torpedo the last immigration bill -- despite the bipartisan support of then-President George W. Bush and Democratic and Republican congressional leaders -- remain active. NumbersUSA, a nonprofit started by reporter-turned-advocate Roy Beck in 1998, argues that an increasing population will mean a decreasing quality of life in the United States. The Virginia-based nonprofit and a sister organization, NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation, have an annual budget of more than $6 million. Neither group is required to disclose information on donors to the public. NumbersUSA has hired three firms, Timothy Rupli and Associates, Majority Group LLC and the Mita Group, to advance its case in Congress, relying on some familiar Capitol Hill faces. Majority Group was started by a former Idaho congressman, Walt Minnick. (Minnick was ousted by tea party candidate Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a former immigration lawyer who has spoken out against legalizing illegal immigrants, a key component in the package that Obama wants). And Tim Rupli was a staffer for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, before DeLay resigned amid charges of campaign finance violations. In all, six of the eight lobbyists hired by NumbersUSA have worked on the Hill, research by the Center for Responsive Politics shows. In addition to lobbying, NumbersUSA runs a grassroots operation and grades members of Congress based on where they stand on immigration. For instance, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, gets an A+ on several immigration-related issues while, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., gets a F-. Numbers is focusing its opposition on the proposal to provide a path to citizenship for immigrants living illegally in the United States. The inclusion of such a measure in the legislation that then-President Bush backed in 2007 helped bring the bill down. But some supporters for a comprehensive immigration plan predict, the time is ripe for it to work in 20 13 , after a series of elections in which Hispanics turned out in large numbers and turned against the Republican Party, in part over harsh rhetoric by some of its leaders about immigration. Moreover sectors that have been at odds over details of immigration bills past are working to iron out their differences in the interest of presenting a united front. We have had unified labor conversation and focused on the future immigrants, how they get here in a legal manner and protection once they are here, said Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of SEIU.
19 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Not Until 201

Will Pass next month top of the agenda. Silverleib 3-28. [Alan, CNN Congressional Producer, "Immigration tops agenda as senators tour border" CNN Newswire -www.12newsnow.com/story/21819421/immigration-tops-agenda-as-senators-tour-border]
Immigration tops agenda as senators tour border A bipartisan group of U.S. senators at the heart of the debate over immigration reform toured the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona on Wednesday -- the latest sign of growing legislative momentum on a polarizing issue that has been stalled on Capitol Hill for years. Arizona GOP Sens. John McCain
and Jeff Flake were joined on the tour by New York's Chuck Schumer and Colorado's Michael Bennet, both Democrats. The four men are part of a group of eight senators expected to unveil comprehensive legislation soon after Congress returns from its spring break in April. President Barack Obama also stepped up his push for a comprehensive bill, sitting down for interviews with the Telemundo and Univision. While both interviews were embargoed, immigration was expected to dominate the discussion. Speaking at a naturalization ceremony at the White House on Monday, Obama said he expects
significant legislation action next month. "We are making progress, but we've got to finish the job," the president said. "I want to sign that bill into law as soon as possible." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told reporters Wednesday she is "optimistic" about the chances of legislative success. Democrats and Republicans have been bogged down for years over the question of how best to secure the country's border while resolving the status of roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants. A rare political window appeared to open after last November's presidential election, when GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney performed dismally among
Hispanic voters. Despite strong conservative resistance to a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Republican leaders recognize their party's need to appeal more strongly to America's fastest growing minority group. For his part, Obama is hoping to lock in a major second term legislative victory. A
source familiar with the congressional negotiations has told CNN that the eight senators have tentatively reached agreement on some of the thorniest issues, such as a path to citizenship and metrics for securing the border. The groups is also working on a revamped guest worker program, the source noted. Top of the docket Obama has the GOP on board.
AFP 3-27. [Agence France-Presse, "Obama expects Senate immigration bill next month" -- www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/obamaexpects-senate-immigration-bill-next-month/] US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he expected the Senate would start debating comprehensive immigration reform next month, putting an optimistic spin on the legislations prospects. In an interview with the Univision Spanish-language television station, Obama praised a bipartisan group of Democratic and Republican senators working to come up with a joint bill on the issue. The good news is, it seems like they are actually making progress. My expectation is that we
will actually see a bill on the floor of the Senate next month, he said. In a separate interview with Telemundo, Obama said Congress could pass legislation by this summer. Immigration reform is a centerpiece of Obamas second-term agenda and would represent a substantial enhancement of his political legacy if he can get it passed. Long-stalled immigration reform efforts gained momentum after the November elections, in which Obama won another term with overwhelming support from Hispanic voters for whom the issue is a motivating one. Obama has courted Republican leaders on the issue and a group of senators from both parties is seeking to wrap up an agreement on a
proposed law that would bring 11 million undocumented migrants out of the shadows. The senators say their plan would offer a pathway to eventual citizenship, taking up to 13 years or more. The plan would also include steps to better secure US borders and the introduction of an employee verification program.
20 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Obama Involvement Backfires

Will passObama push resolves labor union issue Sarlin 3/29. *Benjy, reporter,Business And Labor Closing In On Immigration Deal
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/business-labor-closing-in-on-immigration-deal]
Business and labor leaders believe they are close to a deal on how to handle future immigrant workers, which would provide a tremendous boost to Senate efforts to draft a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. According to the New York Times, officials at the Chamber of Comerce and AFL-CIO are close enough on issues concerning how many visas would be made available to guest workers in an immigration bill and what wages they would be paid. The White House and Senate have been encouraging the talks, hoping to bring both interest groups together in supporting a bill.
Obama is carefully managing his approach to avoid backlash

Sink 3-26-13 (After taking hit in the polls, Obama pivots back to immigration reform By Justin Sink 03/26/13 05:00 AM ET Obama faces a delicate high-wire act on guns and immigration: Claim too much ownership for an issue, and swing-state Republicans who had been considering working with the White House might buck; Sit too far back, and risk losing steam on policy initiatives or allowing Republicans to take credit. In both of those policy areas, the president is involving himself carefully, allowing what appears to be some momentum in Congress to manage the issues, Jillson said. The president's involvement is modest, if not behind the scenes, because there is still enough post-election bad blood among the House GOP that direct presidential involvement
drives away support.
Obama is walking a tightrope pushing it now carefully- avoiding backlash Parker 2-14. [Ashley, reporter, "On Immigration, Obama Draws Bipartisan Praise" New York Times -www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/politics/senate-panel-tackles-immigration.html?_r=0] President Obamas
nonconfrontational tone on an immigration overhaul in his State of the Union address on Tuesday
night probably did more to advance the issue, lawmakers said, than if had he offered a fierce rallying cry, as he did about gun restrictions. As senators gathered Wednesday for the first hearing on the proposed sweeping changes in immigration law, they said
the presidents decision to give members of both parties room to maneuver on the delicate politics of immigration was a strategic choice that could pay off as negotiations continued. Hes walking a tightrope here, trying to allow Congress on a bipartisan basis to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the
Senate, said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. He encouraged us, told us he doesnt want this to drag on forever, and if we cant get it done hell play more forceful role. Mr. Durbin, a member of a bipartisan group of eight senators working on an immigration bill, added, The reason hes on this tightrope is the Republicans dont want to make it appear that they are bending to the president on this issue. Influential Republicans praised Mr. Obama as well. Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the partys vicepresidential nominee last year, said the presidents tone on immigration was measured and constructive. I thought on immigration he used the right words and the right tone, which tells me he actually doesnt want to politicize this, which is conducive to getting something done, Mr. Ryan said. Given their losses in the Congressional elections in November, Republicans
in both the House and Senate have demonstrated a new openness to immigration changes that could lead to legal residency for millions who have entered
the country illegally. At the same time, polls have shown that the presidents involvement in the debate decreases Republican support. White House officials said the president was just as aggressive on immigration as he was on firearms, though his appeal for changes in gun laws was one of the emotional peaks of the night. Cecilia Muoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said immigration was an issue on which we expect an outcome and we expect it soon. The president, who most recently laid out his own immigration principles in a January speech in Las Vegas, told Congress on Tuesday night that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It was a refrain he repeated several times to applause. Mr. Obama
proceeded to highlight what he believed are the three goals of any immigration deal ensuring that the borders are secure, creating a meaningful path to citizenship, and overhauling the system to deal with legal immigration. But when talking about immigration, he seemed to lack the 21 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
emotional resonance, not to mention the forceful call to action, that he exhibited when discussing gun control, where he exhorted the country to remember that all victims of gun violence deserve a vote. Which may have been exactly the point. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, began his remarks at Wednesdays hearing by thanking the president for his State of the Union comments on immigration. His remarks last night on immigration were just right, Mr. Schumer said. He importuned us to act, he stated how important it was to get this done for the future of America, but at the same time he did not make it a wedge issue. He made it
clear that we had to act in a bipartisan way and gave us, in our little group, the space to come up with a bipartisan proposal, which we know is really our only hope. Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and a member of the bipartisan group, said he had no complaints actually I thought it was good for the process.
Obama is doing a balancing act on immigration this strategy will be successful Grant 2-13. [David, staff writer, "Immigration reform: Why many GOP lawmakers applauded Obama speech" Christian Science Monitor -www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0213/Immigration-reform-Why-many-GOP-lawmakers-applauded-Obama-speech]
Many Republicans said Obama had handled the immigration issue deftly . I thought on comprehensive immigration reform, I thought his words were measured," Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, House Budget Committee chairman and a longtime supporter of immigration issues, told CNN. "I think the tone and the words he took were productive on that front. Representative Labrador, meanwhile, went on to suggest a way forward on the
contentious matter of whether undocumented immigrants can ever become US citizens. While Obama argued for a path to citizenship for the unauthorized, Labrador recast the problem of citizenship in a way that might appeal to conservative lawmakers, saying what the US needs is not a separate citizenship path for illegal immigrants but rather a smarter legal immigration system that illegal immigrants could access. I am opposed to creating a new pathway to citizenship only for the illegal aliens," Labrador said. "If we can reform the immigration system so more people can actually immigrate to the United States, we can allow the people that are here illegally right now to actually take advantage of that existing pathway or whatever new pathways we create. Labradors ideas on immigration policy could reverberate among vocal conservatives in the House. Rep. Thomas Massie (R) of Kentucky, who could be straight out of central casting as an immigration reform naysayer, says he is very interested in immigration and has learned much from Labrador. Representative Massie says hed like to see a functional agricultural worker program and would like to take the folks that are in the shadows out of the shadows. He opposes a pathway to citizenship just for illegal immigrants, but he doesn't object to undocumented immigrants obtaining citizenship through the legal immigration process. Still,
getting from goodwill to good legislation will be a long, long road. And Republicans worry that Obama may make it devilishly hard for them to get to yes. Brady, the Texas congressman, said the president wasnt too bad on antagonizing Republicans Tuesday night. But remember, he cautions, weve got a few more days of his campaign yet. Dont sell him short.
22 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Guest Workers/Low Skill Workers

Deal on guest workers
NPR, 4-8, 13, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/08/176572962/guns-immigration-andbudget-on-washingtons-agenda Both the Senate and House are expected to continue work on immigration bills this week. Most of the focus has been on the Senate, where a bipartisan "Gang of Eight" could be close to presenting its plan for a deal that would include a path to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants now in the country illegally. During the congressional recess, organized labor and business groups indicated they are willing to reach agreement on a "guest-worker program" for immigrants, a key concession. Time 4-8, 13, http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-overthe-low-skilled-worker-visa/
At the heart of a soon-to-be-released bipartisan compromise on immigration reform is a controversial proposal that would create several new government bureaus and offices to oversee a new generation of legal, low-skilled immigrantsas many as 200,000 a year when the program gets up and running. The proposal tries to address the ultimate cause of illegal immigration: not merely porous borders or unscrupulous employers, but the immutable fact that jobs here pay better here than ones back there. When Washington has tried to end illegal immigration in the past, Congress has ignored that simple labor market reality. This time, surprisingly, instead of trying to stop the illegal flow of low-skilled foreign workers to unfilled American jobs by increasing penalties and enforcement, the bipartisan bloc of Senators proposes to legalize it, in part. Under the terms of a deal struck between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Gang of Eight over Easter weekend, the bill would create a new, lowskilled worker visa: the W -visa. After listing a low-skilled job and receiving no acceptable American applicants, an employer could register to recruit a foreign worker. Entering the country for one job, a W-visa holder could legally change jobs immediately. Their initial employer could turn around and hire another W-visa holder the next day. What if a low-skilled worker decides he or she wants to stay? Holders of the W-visa could get on a path for citizenship after one year.
Some immigration experts and economists view the bill as a historic breakthrough. Its thoughtful and innovative, says Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA., a pro-business immigration group. Supply and demand is going to generate a flow of [foreign low-skilled] workers, says Jacoby, Its our choice whether we want them to come here legally or illegally. Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-over23 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate the-low-skilled-worker-visa/#ixzz2Px4N7lSQ
{File Name}
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-overthe-low-skilled-worker-visa/#ixzz2Px3xO7gV
24 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Border Security

Disagreements on border security will be worked out --- itll pass
Nowicki 3-30 (Dan,- writer for Arizona Central Business-labor deal opens way for immigration bill)
A new foreign-worker program and a new W visa would be created as part of a bipartisan Senate groups forthcoming immigration-reform legislation, according to organized labors description of a potentially landmark compromise negotiated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If the deal holds up, it is much more likely that the so-called Gang of Eight can meet its goal of introducing a comprehensive bill when the Senate comes back from its two-week Easter break. The group of four Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and four Democrats had hoped to wrap up talks more than a week ago but could not come to terms on the worker program, which is just one of several complicated components that will be included in the sweeping immigration-system overhaul. The overall proposal would aim to balance increased border security with a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States and a mechanism that would allow for the future flow of foreign labor into the country. The senators left Capitol Hill more than a week ago after a series of contentious meetings that put into doubt whether a pact could be reached. However, the Gang of Eight members have kept in touch by telephone and have continued to work toward solutions on the outstanding points of contention in hopes of maintaining their aggressive timetable. On Wednesday, McCain, Flake and two Democratic members of the group Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado toured the Arizona-Mexico border to deepen their understanding of the enforcement situation. The group needs to move quickly to ensure that a bill can be passed before Congress bogs down in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. The other Gang of Eight members are Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida. President Barack Obama has made passing immigration reform a priority and has given the bipartisan Senate group room to work out the differences by themselves. And while there has been much political energy behind the drive for immigration reform, there also is a groundswell of opposition, with reform foes hoping to revive the public outcry that killed the last serious attempt to pass such a bill, in 2007. According to details of an agreement in principle that the labor giant AFL-CIO provided Saturday to The Arizona Republic, the new program tentatively set to begin April 1, 2015, with 20,000 available W visas would not be a guest- or temporary-worker system as envisioned in past attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, after 12 months, workers in the program would be allowed to self-petition for permanent legal status. They also would not need to rely on a single employer and could switch jobs. The wages paid to the incoming future workers would be the greater of either the actual wages the employer pays to other similarly qualified and experienced employees or the U.S. Department of Labors prevailing wage level for the occupational classification in the area of employment, according to the AFLCIO. The argument over wages had been a major stumbling block in the negotiations between the chamber and the labor federation. In conjunction with the new worker program, a new federal agency called the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research also would be created within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This is a huge breakthrough, said Frank Sharry, executive director of Americas Voice, a national organization that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. Labor and business have really been at each others throats over this issue for years, and the fact that theyve come together shows just how much momentum there is for reform. They got to yes instead of getting to no. However, Flake on Saturday cautioned that there are details and more substantive items still to be worked out in the legislation, including border-security elements. We (the Gang of Eight) havent seen the language, Flake said. Were still writing the language, and there 25 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
are still some details to iron out. ... We are closer on some of the stickiest items and I think well get there, but were not there yet.
Border security wont hold up the billitll be included

Foley 3-26-13 (Elise, staff writer, "Janet Napolitano: Border Trigger 'Not The Way To Go'" Huffington Post) www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/janet-napolitano-border-trigger_n_2955166.html
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is not a member of the group, said in a speech last week that immigration reform should allow undocumented immigrants to eventually become citizens, but also argued that changes should be coupled with strict tracking of border security improvements. The Obama administration has not said President Barack Obama opposes the policy, although a plan he put forward does not include such a trigger. Officials have also stated that the border is more secure than ever and that significant resources are being devoted there already -- an assertion that is backed up by independent reports. Still,
Obama and Napolitano have said border security could and should be improved as any part of comprehensive immigration reform, and the secretary reiterated on Tuesday that they will do what they can to
support the efforts of the bipartisan groups in Congress. Border measures should be coupled with employer enforcement, a streamlined legal immigration process and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, she argued. "What I try to communicate when I speak with members of Congress is, look, border security is not somehow different from looking at the overall immigration system," she said. "They go together." Though she wouldn't get into specifics about their work with the gang of eight, Napolitano said her department has provided lawmakers some information about their upcoming border security plans, such as a sector-by-sector approach that acknowledges the different needs of different regions along the U.S.-Mexico border. "What more could be done is to make sure those plans are filled out," she said. Napolitano also cautioned against another commonly-used phrase in immigration reform: getting to the "back of the line" behind those trying to immigrate legally. The Obama administration has used the phrase as well, and Napolitano didn't argue on Tuesday that undocumented immigrants should be given a quicker path than would-be legal immigrants. Still, she pointed out that the "line" isn't easy to define. "There's also talk about getting in the back of the line -- that's easier said than done," Napolitano said. "Calculating what the line is at any given time, it moves. So those judgments will have to be made." Although such issues still need to be resolved, Napolitano said she is hopeful that immigration reform can pass. "Four years ago when I started here and I went around the hill saying, 'Let's work together on immigration reform,' I didn't really get a positive response. ... It was like, 'We can't take on another big issue,'" she said. "I think now is the time. I think the election had consequences in that regard ... Am I optimistic? I'm always
optimistic.
26 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Path to Citizenship

Will pass despite opposition
IBT 3-22 (International Business Tribune, "Immigration Reform Bill Suddenly Close: What Made
Republicans Change Their Minds, www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-bill-suddenly-close-whatmade-republicans-change-their-minds-1145763#) A growing number of Republicans are choosing to embrace a path to citizenship, as Rand Paul did during a speech at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on March 19. Prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into becoming and being taxpaying members of society, Paul said, announcing his newfound support for the policy. Paul is the most recent high-profile Republican to publicly change his mind about the path to citizenship. He was preceded by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a likely 2016 presidential candidate and a member of the Gang of Eight, a bipartisan cadre of senators working to create an immigration reform bill that Congress can pass. The new gospel hasn't spread to everybody in the Republican party, though. What you still have is kind of a hard-core restrictionist element, said Cooper, the Fragomen attorney. There are a couple of members in the Senate, but probably more in the House, who are adamantly opposed to any kind of legalization or amnesty program. Despite remaining opposition , a path to citizenship will likely included in any comprehensive immigration reform bill that Congress brings to the floor this year, according to Gregory Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Since the November elections, momentum has been steadily building to get immigration reform passed this year, in a way that we havent seen probably in the better part of a decade, Chen said. Significantly, were talking about legalization for the undocumented who are here -- providing a way for 11 or 12 million people to get a green card or citizenship. The debate over how to reform Americas immigration system will not end overnight. But by the time Independence Day fireworks go off over the Washington Monument this summer, dont be surprised if this hard-fought battle has finally come to a close.
The bill will have path to citizenship

Sarlin 3-4 (Benjy, "5 Reasons Immigration Reform Might Actually Pass," Talking Points Memo,
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/5-reasons-immigration-reform-looks-like-it-might-actuallypass.php) Theres A Path To A Path To Citizenship Along with the guest worker fight, the next most contentious issue is a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Democrats and immigration activists say theyll walk without a clear route to citizenship at some point, even if its not an immediate one (Obamas plan would take at least 13 years to kick in). Its less clear how the Senates plan works, but it does commit to a path to citizenship as well, including an expedited route for young undocumented immigrants and agricultural workers. The House side is still a mystery, though. Theres a bipartisan group working on a bill that contains an odd mix of pro-reform progressives and border hawk conservatives and theyve yet to leak any significant details about their plan. Theres a lot more skepticism about a path to citizenship on the House side, but key Republicans are leaving at least some wiggle room for them to adopt one. This is made somewhat easier by the fact path to citizenship, like amnesty is a vague, malleable term. Some Republicans, for example, say theyre against a special path to citizenship, but that theyd let undocumented immigrants get in the back of the line behind legal applicants for green cards and citizenship under a process that actually might give them a chance of being approved. As for House leadership, top Republicans including Boehner, Cantor, and 27 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
especially Ryan are going out of their way to encourage bipartisan talks, even if they havent pledged to support the results. Add it all up and immigration reform, while nowhere near passage, is gliding along about as smoothly as supporters could hope so far.
Path to citizenship wont stop the bill momentum building IBT 3 22 13 International Business Tribune [http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-billsuddenly-close-what-made-republicans-change-their-minds-1145763]
A Path To Citizenship
One of the biggest sticking points on immigration reform legislation in the past has always been the issue of providing a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants already in this country.
Allowing the more than 11 million people who are in the U.S. illegally to become full-fledged citizens has long been derided by Republicans as an attempt to provide amnesty to people who broke the law when they entered the country.
The impetus behind the Republicans' change of heart on legalizing undocumented, or "illegal," immigrants isn't just political expediency; there are fiscal implications as well, and Republicans are sensitive to that issue.
There are economic benefits to immigration reform. Giving people a path to citizenship or legalization will require them to pay taxes, said New Jersey-based immigration attorney Andres Mejer. They will come out of the shadows, they will buy homes, they will invest in education and move up the social ladder.
A growing number of Republicans are choosing to embrace a path to citizenship, as Rand Paul did during a
speech at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on March 19. Prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into becoming and being taxpaying members of society, Paul said, announcing his newfound support for the policy.
Paul is the most recent high-profile Republican to publicly change his mind about the path to citizenship. He was preceded by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a likely 2016 presidential candidate and a member of the Gang of Eight, a
bipartisan cadre of senators working to create an immigration reform bill that Congress can pass. The new gospel hasn't spread to everybody in the Republican party, though. What you still have is kind of a hard-core restrictionist element, said Cooper, the Fragomen attorney. There are a couple of members in the Senate, but probably more in the House, who are adamantly opposed to any kind of legalization or amnesty program.
Despite remaining opposition, a path to citizenship will likely included in any comprehensive immigration reform bill that
Congress brings to the floor this year, according to Gregory Chen, director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Since the November elections, momentum has been steadily building to get immigration reform passed this year, in a way that we havent seen probably in the better part of a decade, Chen said. Significantly, were talking about legalization for the undocumented who are here -- providing a way for 11 or 12 million people to get a green card or citizenship.
Path to citizenship will get included NYT 3 22 13 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/broad-support-for-path-to-citizenship-pollfinds.html?_r=0

Nearly two-thirds
of Americans favor giving illegal immigrants in the country an opportunity for legal status with a path to citizenship, according to a poll published Thursday by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution. Support for an earned path to citizenship for those immigrants came from 71 percent of Democrats and also a majority, 53 percent, of Republicans, the poll found.
The option that drew the least support in the poll was legal residency for illegal immigrants with no path to citizenship: only 14 percent of Americans favored that approach. A larger minority, about 21 percent, said illegal immigrants should be identified by the authorities and deported. As Republicans have been searching with fresh intensity in recent weeks for a new approach to the divisive issue of immigration, the
poll provides potentially heartening information to lawmakers who have urged the party to support overhaul legislation that would eventually allow illegal immigrants to become citizens.
28 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
The poll is notable because of the large size of its sample. The results are based on bilingual landline and cellphone
interviews between Jan. 28 and Feb. 24 with 4,465 adults in the continental United States. (The margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points.) The Public Religion Research Institute is a nonpartisan research organization that focuses on religion and politics. The Brookings Institution, which is also nonpartisan, conducts research on public policy issues.
29 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Uniqueness -- Thumpers
30 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: All Thumpers

Obama going to the matt and investing capital in immigration, will compromise on other issues
SANJAY SANGHOEE, 4-10, 13has worked at leading investment banks as well as at a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. He has an MBA from Columbia Business School and is the author of the financial thriller "Merger" (available below) which Chicago Tribune called "Timely, Gripping, and Original". Please follow him on Twitter and Facebook (Candid Politics & Business Blogs), Obamas Blueprint for Victory, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/compromise-reform-how-
oba_b_3055100.html Some presidents are caretakers. In their view, the best leadership is to make sure that nothing goes terribly wrong and that the ship remains stable. As long as they do that, they consider themselves successful. But that is not this president. This president wants to accomplish something tangible, dramatic, and lasting, and that is to institute reform. Reform in healthcare, reform in marriage equality, reform in immigration, reform in education, reform in campaign finance, and reform in clean energy. In all these areas, Obama sees the potential for dramatic change and lasting long-term effects, and that is why he is willing to go to the mat on these issues. On other things, including Social Security and Medicare, the budget deficit, and even gun control, he sees less room for dramatic improvement - either because of circumstances or political reality - and so is more willing to compromise. Is this good or bad? It is neither, really. It is just the nature of this presidency and perhaps Obama's destiny. Leaders pick and choose their battles based on the nation's circumstances, unexpected contingencies, and their own instincts. President Obama's instincts led him to fight for healthcare, so he did - ferociously, and he will do the same for immigration, education, and clean energy. He is being roundly criticized for proposing a budget that agrees to cuts in Social Security by tying it to a Chained CPI, and for agreeing to a softer gun control bill than the one his party promised after Newtown, in order to reach compromise with the Republicans. But what I believe is really happening is that Obama is making some very tough choices. Political capital is a finite resource and this president will use it where he feels it will do the most good. We can disagree with him on his priorities, but I also see where he is coming from. Preserving Social Security is important but so is getting a budget passed and reaching some type of compromise to keep the government running. Gun control is urgent but so are immigration and education. History will decide whether the benefits of Obama's reforms on some fronts will outweigh the costs of his bipartisan compromises on others, but in the meantime, the Democrats should remember that governing has always been about horse-trading, and that Obama has only a short time left to address the major facets of his agenda. Obama is prepared to lose a few battles in order to win the war. That is not being weak or a turncoat. It is being pragmatic and smart. It is also being Presidential.
Immigration is the top agenda item and Obama is lobbying Congress for passage
31 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Fifield, 3-20-13, Financial Times, Immigration: Pressure mounts on Obama to overhaul citizenship requirements, [Anna], p. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9235c2aa8ad4-11e2-b1a4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OUBxAATN
With every attempt of the past decade ending in failure, is there any reason to think that this years effort at comprehensive immigration reform will be any more successful? High quality global journalism requires investment. Emboldened by his resounding re-election, Mr Obama has put reform at the top of his legislative agenda this year, urging Congress to pass a common sense bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and provide more visas for highly skilled workers. If it passes, the bill will mark the most profound immigration changes in a generation, not just for the US but for Mexico, too. About two-thirds of the estimated 11m undocumented people living in the US are Mexican and giving them the opportunity to earn US citizenship would have a significant impact on their earning power. Latin American immigrants who became citizens during the Reagan-era reforms in 1986 enjoyed wage increases in the range of 6 to 13 per cent, according to a report from the libertarian Cato Institute. If immigration reform includes a guest worker programme, that would benefit Mexico by allowing more seasonal workers to come and go as needed. But these are big ifs. Immigration reform is a tricky political issue at any time and especially so amid continuing economic malaise. Opponents of reform say that giving papers to unauthorised immigrants rewards them and allows them to take jobs away from Americans. Some even say it will precipitate a flood of new arrivals over the Mexican border. Some of the strongest advocates still put the prospects for reform passing this year at 50-50, citing opposition from conservative Tea Party members in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives judiciary committee, has argued against creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It's to abide by the immigration laws and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship, Mr Goodlatte said last month. Despite such rhetoric, there is cause for optimism. There has been new consensus between groups usually on opposite sides of the issue the labour unions and big business lobbies to push for reform, adding to pressure to overhaul the system. A bipartisan gang of eight senators has put forward a blueprint and similar efforts are under way in the House. But the biggest factor is simple demographics. Hispanic voters comprise the fastest growing part of the electorate and their share of the US population is forecast to rise from 17 per cent now to 29 per cent by 2050. The pressure group Voto Latino puts that in context, noting that there are 50,000 Hispanic Americans turning 18, the voting age, every month. The Hispanic electorate as a bloc has long tended to support Democrats. In last years election, 71 per cent backed Mr Obama, to Republican Mitt Romneys 27 per cent. This was in large part because of Mr Romneys hostile language during the Republican campaign, when he said that, if president, he would make conditions so bad for illegal immigrants that they would choose to self-deport. As they try to avoid further alienating the Hispanic electorate, some Republicans are eager to remove the issue of immigration from the table before the midterm elections at the end of next year. Influential conservatives have been expressing new-found support for reform and that could help its passage through Congress. Republicans have long insisted that security on the border needs to be tightened but the Obama administrations increased enforcement including the use of drones to monitor movement and a record number of deportations has helped slow the flow of people entering the US illegally. The continued weakness in the US job market and the relative health of the Mexican economy has helped cut numbers, too. The Pew Hispanic Center last year suggested that the net flow of immigrants from Mexico to the US had actually ground to a halt. Mr Obama is keeping the pressure on Congress. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months and I will sign it right away, he said in his State of the Union address last month. The president
32 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
knows the clock is ticking. If reforms are not passed by September, the opportunity will pass. And that means immigration would be put back in the too-hard basket for a few more years.
Their thumpers dont drain capital --- only the plan does
Hirsch 2-7 (Michael,- chief correspondent for National Journal. Theres No Such Thing as Political
Capital, Note: He defines political capital differently than us *as a quantifiable force+, were using political capital as a tag friendly metaphor to describe how pushing the wrong legislative item could derail his agenda. They cut the first 6 paragraphs, we cut the rest.) The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side. The real problem is that the idea of political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. Presidents usually over-estimate it, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The best kind of political capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980. For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudoconcept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins. In theory, and in practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time 33 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for? Johnson didnt worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues , as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable fact of political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stockmarket collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind of public urgency on Social Security reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I dont think Obamas going to make that mistake. Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didnt understand how steep the hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Partys concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, 34 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the teaparty revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financialreform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move peoples hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of Obamas second-term agenda, what all these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood will supportsuch as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun controlthere is no reason to think he cant win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early winsas he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increasethat will create 35 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
momentum, and one win may well lead to others. Winning wins. Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a post-partisan president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly wasa giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measurehe might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist.
Lobbying involved in legislative agenda items is key --- only the plan causes resource trade-offs in agenda setting Barrett 99
(Andrew,- PhD in political science from Texas A&M University Presidential Agenda Setting in Congress) Influencing the policy agenda, the set of issues that receive serious attention by policymakers, has long been viewed as one of the most important sources of political power (Downs 1972, Anderson 1975, Walker 1977, Light 1982, Cobb and Elder 1983, Peters and Hogwood 1985, Baumgartner and Jones 1993, Jones 1994, Kingdon 1995, Flemming, Wood, and Bohte 1997, Wood and Peake 1998). At the core of every presidents legislative strategy is obtaining space on the congressional agenda for his most important proposals. Attaining agenda status is a necessary prelude to the passage of a bill. The White House must obtain agenda space for its proposals in order to build momentum and obtain congressional commitments of support for them. Moreover, it is to the presidents advantage for Congress to use his proposal as the starting point in marking up a bill (McKelvey 1976). Having the presidents own proposal on the agenda makes his bargaining position known to members of Congress and provides him a greater chance to define the terms of debate and thus the premises on which members of Congress make their decisions (Edwards 1989, 206-209). In addition, the White House wants to ensure that its proposals compete favorably with other proposals on the agenda. If presidents are not able to focus Congresss attention on their priority programs, the programs will become lost in the complex and overloaded legislative process . Moreover, presidents and their staff have the time and energy to lobby effectively for only a few bills at a time, and the presidents political capital is inevitably limited . As a result, presidents wish to focus on advancing their own initiatives rather than opposing or modifying the proposals of others. Thus, the White House not only wants its initiatives to be on the congressional agenda but also prefers to have fewer congressional initiatives with which it must deal. For decades, scholars have maintained that the president has a significant - indeed, the most significant - role in setting the policymaking agenda in Washington (see, for example, Huntington 1973). John Kingdons careful study of the Washington agenda found that no other single actor in the political system has quite the capability of the president to set agendas . . . the president can single handedly set the agendas, not only of people in the executive branch, but also of people in Congress and outside the government (1995, 23). More recently, Baumgartner and Jones, in their broad examination of agenda setting, concluded that no other single actor can focus attention as clearly, or change the motivations of such a great number of other actors, as the president (1993, 241). Bond and Fleisher argue that the presidents greatest influence over policy comes from the agenda, how he pursues and the way it is 36 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
packaged (1990, 230). Even scholars who have cautioned against acceptance of a presidency-centered view of government have recognized the importance of agenda setting to the presidency (Moe and Teel 1970). Edwards (1989), for example, argues that agenda setting has the potential to be one of the presidents most important strategic powers. Charles O. Jones, like Edwards, is skeptical of the presidents ability to set the policy agenda easily. Nevertheless, he concludes that the president has significant influence in agenda setting (1994, 181).
The link is orders of magnitude bigger than the thumper Moe and Howell 99
(Terry and William, professor of political sciene at Stanford and grad student at Stanford, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 12/1, lexis)
Presidents can exercise two important kinds of agenda control in their relations with Congress. The first is now part of the familiar, textbook description of American politics: precisely because Congress is so fragmented, the president's policy proposals are the focal points for congressional action. The major issues Congress deals with each year, as a result, are fundamentally shaped by what presidents decide will be the salient concerns for the nation. While this kind of agenda power is of great consequence, a second kind may well be even more important for the institutional balance of power, yet it is rarely recognized as such. This is the agenda power that presidents exercise when they take unilateral action to alter the status quo. When they do this, they present Congress with a fait accompli--a new, presidentially made law--and Congress is then in the position of having to respond or acquiesce. Note the key differences between these forms of agenda control. Under the first, presidential success ultimately requires an affirmative act by Congress, and thus that Congress go through all the laborious steps necessary to produce new legislation--which is typically very difficult, highly conflictual, timeconsuming, and, in the final analysis, unlikely to happen. This is why modern presidents have incentives to shy away from the "legislative strategy" of presidential leadership (Nathan 1983). Even with all their resources, they can expect to have a hard time getting their programs through Congress. On the other hand, the second form of agenda control, rooted as it is in unilateral action, gives the president what he wants immediately--a shift in the status quo and perhaps a new increment to his power--and depends for its success on Congress's not being able to pass new (and veto proof) legislation that would overturn or change it. Such a requirement is much more readily met, for it is far easier, by many orders of magnitude , to block congressional action than it is to engineer new legislation. No legislative horse-trading means it doesnt link Sovocool 09
(Ben, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, Columbia J Environmental Law)
Executive Orders also save time in a second sense. The President does not have to expend scarce political capital trying to persuade Congress to adopt his or her proposal. Executive Orders thus save presidential attention for other topics. Executive Orders bypass congressional debate and opposition, along with all of the horse-trading and compromise such legislative activity entails. 292
Non-involvement preserves capital --- active involvement in specific battles like the plan is key Bernstein 11
37 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
(8/20/11 Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist who writes about American politics, especially the presidency, Congress, parties and elections,http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/20/bernstein_presidential_ power/index.html) Moreover, the positions of the president and most everyone else are, to look at it one way, sort of opposites. The president has potential influence over an astonishing number of things -- not only every single policy of the U.S. government, but policy by state and local governments, foreign governments, and actions of private citizens and groups. Most other political actors have influence over a very narrow range of stuff. What that means is that while the president's overall influence is certainly far greater than that of a House subcommittee chair or a midlevel civil servant in some agency, his influence over any specific policy may well not be greater than that of such a no-name nobody. A lot of good presidential skills have to do with figuring out how to leverage that overall influence into victories in specific battles, and if we look at presidential history, there are lots of records of successes and failures. In other words, it's hard. It involves difficult choices -- not (primarily) policy choices, but choices in which policies to fight for and which not to, and when and where and how to use the various bargaining chips that are available.
38 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Obama Pushing Infrastructure

Immigration before current infrastructure push
Miami Herald 3-29 (www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/29/v-fullstory/3313067/in-miami-obama-topropose-new.html) Obamas economic plan has been somewhat overshadowed with Washington fixated on guns, immigration and federal budget cuts known as the sequester. Some of the loudest applause for Obama on Friday came at the end of his remarks, when he pledged to fix the immigration system, improve schools and prevent gun violence.
39 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Debt Ceiling Thumper

Not top of the docket experts
WSJ 3-21 (Washington debt-ceiling battle looks set to heat up in August)
Theres likely to be a lull in the political trench warfare over tax and spending now that Congress has approved a bill to fund the federal government through the end of its fiscal year in September. But it wont last long. The next key deadline will be in early August, budget experts agree. Unless Congress raises the debt ceiling before then, thats about the time the government exhausts the funds it needs to meet its obligations. In late January, to buy some time for budget committees to do some preliminary work, Congress temporarily suspended the debt ceiling until May 19. It was a complex little piece of legislation, but what is important was that the bill gave Treasury the ability to reload its extraordinary accounting measures to help delay hitting the ceiling. These steps, quickly becoming ordinary rather than extraordinary, can last until the end of July, experts agree. So, on May 19, Treasury is likely have enact some of these steps. Treasury officials would not comment.
40 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Obamas Alt NRG Fund
Doesnt drain capital --- no new spending

Yin 3-24 (Clifton,- writer for the Energy Collective Policymakers Share Common Ground on Energy
Revenue, But Can They Deliver?) Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced the Fixing Americas Inequality with Revenues (FAIR) Act, which would allow coastal states to collect a portion of the revenues of offshore energy production. Specifically, it provides royalty revenues from offshore oil and gas development to coastal states. States would automatically receive 27.5 percent of royalty revenues, but be eligible for an additional 10 percent provided they establish funds to support projects relating to clean energy or conservation. Today, coastal states outside of the Gulf of Mexico dont receive any royalty revenue at all. While it is unclear what exactly these funds would entail, the emergence of the FAIR Act and President Obamas recent Energy Security Trust Fund proposal reflects growing interest in linking energy production to energy innovation. The FAIR Act is motivated in large part by a desire to financially empower coastal states and is only the latest attempt to expand state revenue sharing from offshore fossil fuel development. In 2006, The New Orleans Times-Picayune noted that a bill by Senator Landrieu gave Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas 37.5 percent of proceeds from fuel production in the Gulf, an estimated $6 billion a year that previously went only to the U.S. Treasury. That bill, however, only allows the four Gulf States to start collecting that revenue in 2017, with a combined cap of $500 million. Since then, Senator Landrieu has continuously introduced legislation to accelerate the revenue sharing process and lift the $500 million cap and the FAIR Act is only the most recent iteration. But the FAIR Act is also a promising clean energy innovation policy. While legislative text has not been released as of this writing, the proposed state funds will likely resemble the Advanced Energy Trust Fund idea outlined by Senator Murkowski in her Energy 20/20policy blueprint. That proposal called for federal revenue from expanded energy production going towards a fund that would in turn be applied to the most promising and costeffective proposals in many technologyneutral categories, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative fuels, and advanced vehicles. Furthermore, in addition to its main focus, the legislation includes a provision that increases all states share of revenue from onshore renewable energy production on federal lands to 50 percent, the same existing ratio for oil, coal, and natural gas. As of now, according to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, the vast majority of revenue from onshore energy production on federal land comes from fossil fuels, with solar and wind projects mostly only in the proposal stage. But the Interior Department notes that half the nations geothermal energy comes from federal lands, generating close to $12 million in royalties in fiscal year 2012. And that Departments New Energy Frontier initiative is looking to greatly expand renewable energy production on federal land, with the Secretary approving nine new solar projects on federal land in 2010 alone. Thus, the FAIR Act will not only open up additional revenue for states related to offshore fossil fuel development, but also provide states with an incentive to accelerate onshore renewable energy development. Most importantly, the FAIR Act, along with the presidents Energy Security Trust proposal, is a sign of growing willingness to link energy production to energy innovation, an idea that was the subject of the 2011 ITIF report Lemons to Lemonade. Clearly, the idea has potential in this Congress. In fact, The Hill reports that while Senator Ron Wyden, the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has yet to sign on to the FAIR Act he nevertheless wants to get offshore revenue legislation through Congress and is open to different proposals. Moving forward, President Obama and Senators Landrieu and Murkowski should seek common ground and work together to advance such legislation. 41 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Establishing a dedicated revenue stream for clean energy R&D and other innovation programs would be very welcome news for an endeavor that has long suffered from both inconsistent and underwhelming funding.
Wont drain capital

Politico 3-20
On the other hand, Campbell was optimistic that Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Murkowski, the top Republican on the panel, could come to some kind of broad energy agreement, noting that the two lawmakers have developed a close working relationship. I think theres much more of a chance of things happening than there has been in a long time, Campbell said. Muro 3-18 (Mark,- Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program Flow Oil and Gas Revenues to Cleantech R&D: Common Ground on Energy?) Can Congress pass any sort of energy legislation? Im not holding my breath. For too long now meaningful action through compromise has been a chimera. Even the most plausible deals have been dissipated by ideological tribalism. Still, there remain potential convergence points. Last month the Bipartisan Policy Center advanced more than 50 middle-of-the-road energy policy recommendations developed by its Strategic Energy Policy Initiative, co-chaired by former Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS). And for that matter, interesting discussions surround energy efficiency issues, thoughtful subsidy reform, and steps like opening master limited partnership status to renewable energy projects. Now comes President Obamas modest proposal to capitalize an Energy Security Trust fund to support research into de-carbonizing the vehicle sector. To be funded with $2 billion over 10 years drawn from royalties the government receives from offshore drilling on the Outer Shelf, the new proposalfirst aired in Obamas State of the Union address last month represents an important check point on the potential for constructive action through compromise in Congress. To be sure, the proposed research fund is tiny, given the scale of the nations cleantech research needs. And yes, its focused only on the transportation sector. And yes, the proposal is quite vague and so hard to gauge. But even so, the energy trust concept represents a significant bid to test the potential for advancing energy policy. Research on clean energy technologies remains a critical priority. Locating funding for it remains a critical challenge. And the presidents proposal probes an area of genuine potential for convergence. For one thing a modest bargain on energy research and oil and gas royalties has always had a sound intellectual grounding. Through such an architecture the costs of investment would be internalized across the energy sector, and the revenues of dirty exploitation would be used to fund clean innovation. That just makes sense. Beyond that there is the fact that the concept has some authentic bipartisan lineage and maybe traction. Some of that comes from the support for the idea by a group of retired military and business leaders, including some Republicans, called Securing Americas Future Energy. More importantly, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has proposed a similar idea (albeit one focused on drilling on lands now off-limits, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska). This convergence might well mean there is room to negotiate a deal that pleases both sides, especially with royalty growth likely in the coming years. Or, maybe not. Perhaps the Energy Security Trust is just another illusion of plausible potential compromise, soon to evaporate. Yet, there is encouragement in something called the American Energy Act, the 2009 energy plan introduced by House Republicans under the leadership of Rep. John Boehner, now speaker of the House. At the center of that plan was a proposed bargain that would have paired expanded oil and gas drilling and nuclear development with new investments in 42 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
renewable and alternative energy. To fund the latter the bill proposed putting hundreds of billions of anticipated new oil and gas royalties into a trust fund to accelerate clean energy innovation. Sound familiar? That proposal may have been mostly a rhetorical counter to the big Democratic push on capand-trade legislation, but it was discussed widely by GOP leadership and represents a useful precedent for a new deal now.
Jenkins 3-19 (Jessie,- writer for the Energy Collective How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?) With the sequester forcing blunt and counter-productive cuts to federal investments in research and development, including an estimated $689 million to Fiscal Year 2013 Department of Energy innovation programs, President Obama's recent proposal to establish a dedicated fund for advanced energy research -- the Energy Security Trust -- is a welcome proposal. Given that just about any energy expert understands we must be investing much more -- not less! -- in energy R&D, the concept behind the Energy Security Trust -- dedicating a small portion of revenues from current oil and gas production towards a fund to accelerate energy innovation -- is an excellent idea and one that I embraced back in April 2010 (see also here and here). President Obama unveiled his support for this concept in his 2013 State of the Union Address and followed that up with remarks last Friday at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The president envisions an Energy Security Trust of $2 billion over 10 years "funded with revenue from profitable oil and gas companies." The Trust would "support research into a range of cost-effective technologies -- like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, fuel cells, and domestically produced natural gas" -- each designed to reduce America's neartotal dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. (For more, see this White House infographic at right or this fact sheet explaining the president's vision.) Strong precedent for energy trust fund The idea of a dedicated trust fund for energy research funded by small "user fees" on current energy production and/or consumption builds on the successful logic of the national Highway Trust Fund. For highways, a small gas tax paid by current users of the highway system ensures we are setting aside the necessary funds today to both maintain the current system and invest in the infrastructure of tomorrow. Likewise, dedicating a small fee on oil and gas production (or consumption) or a portion of increased royalties from energy production on public lands would ensure that as we enjoy relatively cheap and abundant energy supplies today, we are also setting aside the funds needed to make steady investments in the advanced energy technologies needed to secure cheap and abundant energy in the future. This concept could also be extended to include a small charge on electricity usage, known as a "wires fee" that could generate additional funds for research and development of advanced power generation, storage, transmission, and demand response technologies. Several states, including New York, have already implemented similar charges often referred to as "system benefits" or "public benefits charges." From the 1970s-90s, a similar charge on the interstate transport of natural gas was dedicated to fund the Gas Research Institute, a public-private research consortia responsible for numerous advancements, including a key role in the development of commercial shale gas extraction technologies. In short, several strong precedents exists for the Energy Security Trust concept. Making the Energy Security Trust a reality So in general, it is high time we begin a serious conversation about how to generate the necessary, long-term investments in energy research and innovation necessary to address national imperatives including improved security of supply, reduced public health impacts of our energy system, and climate change mitigation. The Energy Security Trust may be a big step in the right direction. With that in mind, the thing that worries me about President Obama's proposed Energy Security Trust as it is difficult to tell how serious he and his administration are about this concept -- or how likely this proposal is to work its way through a politically charged Congress. If the White House is serious, they must know that the proposal as it currently stands, which does not envision opening up any new areas previously 43 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
closed to oil & gas production, will not produce any new federal revenues, at least as far as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is concerned. The way CBO scores budgetary impacts already assumes revenues for any federal lands currently open to oil and gas production are part of the baseline revenue picture. That means that redirecting a a portion of those revenues -- say $2 billion over ten years -- from existing areas open to oil and gas production is actually going to be scored by CBO as deficit enhancing, rather than deficit neutral as the president has been portraying this. According to the White House fact sheet on the Energy Security Trust: "The mandatory funds [for the Trust] would be set aside from royalty revenues generated by oil and gas development in Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), already included in the administrations five year plan. These revenues are projected to increase over the next several years based on a combination of leasing, production, and price trends, with additional revenues potentially generated as a result of reforms being proposed in the FY 2014 Budget. The Trust is paid for within the context of the overall budget." [emphasis added] The problem with this concept is that even if oil and gas prices are likely to increase in the future, thus increasing federal revenues from oil and gas leases on public lands, any such revenue coming from areas already open to production will be considered by CBO as already included in the baseline revenue picture. So the only piece of this proposal that may result in new revenues that CBO would consider as "offsets" for new spending would be the "additional revenues potentially generated as a result of reforms being proposed in the FY 2014 Budget." What those reforms would constitute is unclear. In response to an inquiry for additional details, a White House staffer told me that "those reforms will be made clear when the [FY 2014] budget is released." A bipartisan proposal? The president likes to say that his Energy Security Trust "builds on a proposal supported by a broad bipartisan coalition, including retired military leaders." The coalition he refers to is known as "SAFE" (for Securing America's Future Energy), and he's right that this idea was once embraced by the Republican side of the aisle. In fact, a 2008 energy blueprint released by House Republicans, the "American Energy Act," included the concept of a trust fund for advanced technology research funded by oil and gas royalties. The idea has been championed in particular by Representative Devin Nunes of California in the House and Senator Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska in the Senate. More --- wont drain capital Jenkins 3-19 (Jessie,- writer for the Energy Collective How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?) In short, the president missed a big chance to put this energy trust fund into action in 2010. To get another chance now, he'll have to find some new carrot to entice GOP cooperation. A rock and a hard place Presumably the president already knows all of this. So perhaps this is simply his opening bid, and he's fully prepared in the future to make this a real deficit neutral proposal by offering new areas for oil & gas production in exchange for support from Congressional Republicans. I don't doubt that Senator Murkowski would demand something like that, and the House GOP most certainly would. So maybe, for once, President Obama hasn't pre-capitulated and is saving his cards for the negotiating table. But it's not clear. Even if he can find a proposal palatable to the GOP, the idea may be doomed on his own side of the aisle. Given the current uproar over Canada's tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline as well as past pitched battles over expanded oil and gas production, I have a hard time imagining Congressional Democrats or their environmentalist supporters getting behind the idea of opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling. So can President Obama find some new area in the OCS that is still closed to drilling which greens and Democrats will find palatable and will serve to entice a combative GOP to the table? Or will this Energy Security Trust end up stuck between a rock and a hard place? Another option: raising royalty rates If he can't find new lands or waters to open to oil and gas production, the only other other alternative is to propose an increase in royalties and fees on existing oil and gas producing lands. About 44 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
594 million barrels of oil and 3,724 billion cubic feet of natural gas were produced on federal lands and waters in 2012, according to the Congressional Research Service. Raising $2 billion over ten years -- or a modest $200 million annually -- would thus require increasing royalties by just 15.8 cents per barrel of oil and 2.7 cents per million British thermal units (MMBtus) of natural gas (assuming the necessary revenues were spread across oil and gas on an equal energy-content basis). That's an increase of less than 0.2 percent over current WTI crude oil prices and 0.7 percent over current NYMEX natural gas prices. Put another way, Congress could raise all of the funds needed to support long-term investments in this Energy Security Trust by increasing royalties paid for producing oil and gas from public lands and waters by an amount less than the typical daily fluctuations of oil and gas commodity prices. The increased royalties would be lost in the daily noise of the oil and gas commodity markets and would have a negligible impact on the marginal production of oil and gas on public lands. (As an aside: Congress could likewise fully eliminate the $689 million in counter-productive and damaging sequester cuts to DOE energy innovation programs by increasing royalties by just 54.3 cents per barrel of oil and 9.4 cents per MMBtu of gas) That's a proposal I'd certainly embrace. As a citizen and thus part owner of the oil and gas stored beneath federal lands, I'd certainly like to see a portion of my finite national endowment of oil and gas dug up today dedicated to ensuring we have the clean, advanced energy technologies needed tomorrow. But then again, I can already hear the cries of "ENERGY TAX!!!" from the oil and gas industry and their allies in the Republican Party. So how serious are we to take this Energy Security Trust proposal? How hard is the White House planning to work with Congress to make this law? How serious are GOP leaders like Lisa Murkowski about standing up a long-term trust fund to secure the advanced energy technologies this nation will soon require? Or is all of this just posturing from both sides? Those questions are still at the front of my mind as I think about how to react to this new proposal. Update, March 20, 2013 Nick Juliano at E&E News ($ubscription required) puts several key White House and Congressional figures on the record on their stance towards expanded drilling and possible revenues for the Energy Trust, illustrating the tough road this proposal must walk to become a reality: White House energy adviser Heather Zichal was clear yesterday that new drilling was not part of the president's proposal, which was first outlined in his State of the Union address and reiterated in a heavily promoted speech last week. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is "off the table," and the approach envisions using revenue from the administration's "existing" outer continental shelf exploration plan and "nothing more," she said (Greenwire, March 19). The proposal already was facing resistance in Congress -- especially among House Republicans -- and Zichal's reiteration that new drilling would not be considered puts another nail in the coffin. "It was dead on arrival as far as I was concerned anyway. That ... statement confirms their thinking -- it just doesn't make sense to me philosophically or politically," said Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), who leads the House Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over energy production on federal lands. ... The Senate may have an opportunity to weigh in on the split later this week, as [Alaska Senator and ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee Lisa] Murkowski is considering offering an amendment to the budget resolution that would pay for the trust fund by expanding oil companies' access to federal lands and waters, a spokesman for the senator, Robert Dillon, said yesterday. ... Dillon said Murkowski recognizes that ANWR is likely too controversial to be opened to drilling in conjunction with a trust fund but said that some expanded access would have to be part of any trust fund legislation. Murkowski is in the process of drafting legislation to enact the proposal that could be introduced after Congress returns from its upcoming Passover and Easter recess. ... Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Energy Committee, said his focus has been elsewhere, including on today's scheduled confirmation vote on Interior secretary nominee Sally Jewell, and did not offer a position on the trust fund. "I'm going to have to have some more discussions with the administration before I have a fix on it," Wyden said yesterday. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), a moderate who supports expanded drilling, said he would not support an energy trust fund that was funded without increased access, but he said he was encouraged by the 45 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
administration's continued commitment to oil drilling offshore from his home state. "I think obviously we would like to see a more robust plan on oil and gas development," he said. "But we are pleased that they have not slowed down or stopped what's going on in OCS in Alaska, which is critical." Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who typically sides with environmentalists when it comes to drilling, said he could not back a plan that would open his state's coastline to oil rigs, although he said he would have to study the specifics of any particular proposal. "It's a non-starter for me for any offshore drilling off the Maryland coast," Cardin said yesterday. "So I need to know whether there's an explicit or implicit ... position on that drilling. If it deals with existing drilling and doesn't expand it, then I would be supportive." Juliano was kind enough to offer me the last word on this, concluding: A royalty increase of less than 16 cents per barrel could raise the necessary revenue for the trust fund, said Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher pursuing a master's degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But such an approach likely would generate sharp resistance from the oil industry and its allies in Congress who would dub it another tax increase on energy production. At the same time, expanding drilling would face head winds on Capitol Hill from environmentalists in the Democratic caucus. "That's why I question how serious this proposal is," Jenkins said, "because if they're serious about it, they're going to have to cross one of those two bridges."
46 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: EPA Rules

Wont be debated until after current legislative agenda
Politico 3-25
Still, some Democrats may see a political advantage in pressing the issue: An informal Senate climate change caucus led by Boxer and Wyden heard last week from a pollster from George Mason Universitys Center for Climate Change Communication on how the idea of bipartisan compromise on the topic is resonating with the public. Democrats have argued that Republicans will drive a wider wedge between themselves and younger voters if they dont get more aggressive in acting on climate change. They say polling like this could prove that climate change can win independent voters and is not a third-rail issue. They also say Republicans are hearing more from the insurance and real estate industries about the growing costs imposed by storms like Hurricane Sandy. Still, even the Democrats' climate hawks know their most realistic short-term hopes in Congress lie with more modest efforts to improve energy efficiency and help local communities better protect themselves from climate-driven disasters. The idea is to buy some time before the reality of EPAs rules forces Republicans to take on a more serious debate.
47 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Keystone
Obama wont spend capital on Keystone
Huffington Post, 4-9, 13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/keystone-xlobama_b_3020154.html
Obama has learned that, as president, he only gets a fixed amount of political capital each year and has learned to ration it. In 2007, he didn't feel it was worth stirring up controversy by supporting same-sex marriage; in 2012 he thought it was. He's a cautious pragmatist. He doesn't make snap decisions or ones that will divert his larger agenda. Intuitively, most Democrats know this about the president. At the beginning of 2012, many Democratic stalwarts were less than thrilled by the prospect of a second Obama term. While their reasons varied, there was a common theme, "Obama hasn't kept his promises to my constituency." There were lingering complaints that 2009's stimulus package should have been bigger and a communal whine, "Obama should have listened to us." Nonetheless, by the end of the Democratic convention on September 6, most Dems had come around. In part, this transformation occurred because from January to September of 2012 Dems scrutinized Mitt Romney and were horrified by what they saw. In January some had muttered, "There's no difference between Obama and Romney," but nine months later none believed that. While many Democrats were not thrilled by Obama's first-term performance, they saw him as preferable to Romney on a wide range of issues. In 2009, Obama got a bad rap from some Dems because they believed he did not fight hard enough for the fiscal stimulus and affordable healthcare. In March of 2011, veteran Washington columnist,Elizabeth Drew, described Obama as: ... a somewhat left-of-center pragmatist, and a man who has avoided fixed positions for most of his life. Even his health care proposal -- denounced by the right as a 'government takeover' and 'socialism' -- was essentially moderate or centrist. When he cut a deal on the tax bill, announced on December 7 [2010], he pragmatically concluded that he did not have the votes to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, and in exchange for giving in on that he got significant concessions from the Republicans, such as a fairly lengthy extension of unemployment insurance and the cut in payroll taxes. Making this deal also left him time to achieve other things -- ratification of the START treaty, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. Drew's description of the president as a "left-of-center pragmatist" resonates with my sense of him. He is a political pragmatist who, over the past five years, has learned to guard his political capital and focus it on his highest priorities. In this year's State-of-the-Union address half of the president's remarks concerned jobs and the economy. We gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs -- but too many people still can't find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs -- but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged. It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class.
48 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
He also spoke passionately about the need to address to address global warming, "For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change." But it's clear that's a secondary objective. At one of the Bay Area fundraisers, President Obama observed that his big challenge is to show middleclass families that, "we are working just as hard for them as we are for an environmental agenda." Obama isn't going to block the Keystone XL pipeline because he doesn't believe that he can make the case his action will help the middle-class. He's conserving his political capital. He's being pragmatic.
Wont drain capital until after the DA

Chicago Tribune 3-29 (Energy security and American jobs)
President Barack Obama has a big decision to make about this nation's economic future. The call is an easy one, and it's long overdue. The president should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would link the rich oil sands in the Canadian province of Alberta to U.S. refineries and ports in the Gulf of Mexico. Last Friday evening, 17 Democrats joined all of the U.S. Senate's Republicans in urging Obama to do just that. The 62-37 vote was nonbinding but signaled bipartisan frustration with the administration's reluctance to approve the project. The president is expected to make a decision by this summer. He rejected a Keystone plan a year ago, in the midst of his re-election campaign. That was applauded by some environmental groups and angered the Canadian government. But the most significant impact was this: It kept Americans from getting good-paying jobs.
Wont drain capital --- opposition is just symbolic

McKibben 3-26 (Bill,- writer for City Watch Keystone XL Battle: Confronting a Senate Beholden to 'Big
Oil') First and foremost: the oil industrys Senators did not manage to pass legislation that would force President Obama to build Keystone XL. Because you people all across the country jumped into action this week, they backtracked and instead held a vote on a nonbinding resolution that says it would be nice to build the pipeline, but doesnt actually do much about it. For that vote, they got the stomach-churning number of 62 Senators to vote with them. As usual, the ones who had taken the most money from the fossil fuel industry lined up to cast their votesthe cosponsors of the bill, on average, had taken $807,000 in dirty energy money. Now, this amounts to symbolic chest thumping by the oil industry: showing just how many Senators they can get to jump when told to. Its not the worst thing that could have happened, but it reminds everyone why, in one recent poll, congress had approval ratings lower than head lice and colonoscopies even on the symbolic stuff, they cant get it together to stand up to the oil industry guys cutting them checks.
Hell approve it anyways

SF Gate 3-24
When Obama comes to town on a fundraising trip next week, we are going to confront the president wherever he goes, says the organizer of anti-Keystone pipeline protests in preparation. Weve produced more public comments and more phone calls to the White House, but were skeptical that president is going to listen, she told the Huffington Post. My Sunday column goes over the pros and 49 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
cons of the controversial pipeline that will transport 800,000 barrels a day of Canadian highly emissiongenerating tar sands oil down through the U.S. One provocative quote: If you think that using other petroleum sources is much better then youre delusional. If I had to guess, I think hell approve the pipeline, in the teeth of opposition, and Ill suggest why thats not necessarily the end of the world.
50 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Rusteccia Thumper

No GOP opposition to Energy Trust Fund
The Oil Daily, March 18, 2013, Obama Talks up 'Energy Trust' Proposal, pfactiva
An energy trust -- which would require congressional approval before it is enacted -- was first proposed by Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), a nonpartisan coalition co-chaired by FedEx Chief Executive Frederick Smith and former Marine Corps Commandant General P.X. Kelley. Argonne was a fitting backdrop for the president's talk. The lab is at the forefront of advanced vehicle and battery technologies and is positioned at the center of the DOE's recent formation of the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, a $120 million initiative to develop battery technology. Obama's proposed energy trust is considered a middle-ground plan. It has drawn praise from Republican lawmakers, who said it would align the fates of both fossil and green energy sources, instead of making adversaries of the two. However, Obama is taking flak on the proposal from some fellow progressives in Washington, who argue that relying on fossil energy for clean energy funding will encourage high-carbon sources, rather than encouraging their phase-out over time. "Linking modest investments in energy alternatives to oil and gas production creates a misguided incentive for more oil and gas drilling -- a bad idea made worse without reform regulations and liability caps on offshore drilling," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Washington-based Public Citizen.
51 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Budget Thumper

Immigration before budget debates Hook, 3-24 -- Wall Street Journal Washington bureau political reporter
[Janet, she has covered Congress and national politics since 1995, "Congress Set to Alter Focus After Passing Two Budgets," WSJ, 3-24-13, online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323466204578380820319800066.html, accessed 3-28-13, mss] Congress Set to Alter Focus After Passing Two Budgets After the Senate passed its budget this weekend, Congress is expected to pivot to issues such as immigration and guns before attempting a broader deal on taxes, spending and the national debt later this year.
The budget is resolved Obama is investing PC on Immigration Ford 3/28 (John, Policymic, "Why Obama Signing Sequestration Into Law Was a Strategic Move,")
President Barack Obama finally signed the Sequester into law, locking the infamous spending cuts into place, at least until this September. It is rare for a president to sign into a law a program that he actively opposes President Obama called them "dumb" so why did this one allow these cuts with relatively little confrontation? At the risk of seeming weak, President Obama
is engaging in a tactical
withdrawal
here, not a retreat. The
president sees that no more can be done on the budget stalemate at
this time; with public opinion favoring him, and a popular mandate still only four months fresh, he is better off using his political capital on
other reforms. With over half of his term gone, and a huge laundry list of initiatives still tabled, every move Obama makes is a time management puzzle. And with another inevitable fight on the budget scheduled for the summer, it is time for him to focus on other things for the spring. What is next for the president now that the budget is, for the moment, a settled issue? According to the White House, he is going to emphasize projects that do not require budgetary support: a raise to the minimum wage, for example.
immigration , and housing,
No thumpers immigration has avoided the budget fights FOX NEWS 3 4 13 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/recurring-budget-crises-couldput-squeeze-on-obama-second-term-priorities/
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a vocal advocate for immigration reform, voiced confidence Monday that the
administration and
Congress could handle the busy agenda. "The spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is keeping the immigration issue moving forward has not been poisoned by the sequester and budget stalemate, so far ," he said in a statement. "The two sets of issues seem to exist in parallel universes where I can disagree with my Republican colleagues strenuously on budget matters, but still work with them effectively to eventually reach an immigration compromise. ... I remain extremely optimistic that immigration reform is going to happen this year." Immigration reform efforts are still marching along despite the budget drama. Obama met last week on the issue
with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who both are part of a bipartisan group crafting legislation. However, work on gun control before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was postponed. Carney on Monday voiced optimism that the president could pass new legislation even with a divided Congress. Obama, at the first Cabinet meeting of his second-term, said Monday that his administration would try to manage the sequester's impact "the best we can."
52 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
The president said Friday: "We where we can make progress."
{File Name}
can't let political gridlock around the budget stand in the way of other areas The president said that, "even with the sequester unresolved," Washington could make progress elsewhere.
"I'm going to keep pushing for high-quality preschool for every family that wants it. I'm going to keep pushing to make sure that we raise the minimum wage so that it's one that families can live on. I'm going to keep on pushing for immigration reform, and reform our voting system, and improvements on our transportation sector. And I'm going to keep pushing for sensible gun reforms because I still think they deserve a vote," he
said.
Stop gap means no fight immigration top of the docket. Lawder 3-23. [David, journalist, "Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years" Reuters -- www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/ususa-fiscal-budget-idUSBRE92M02D20130324]
Passage of a stop-gap government funding measure on Thursday lowered the temperature in the budget debate by eliminating the threat of a government shutdown next week. "We're going to get a breather here. Congress will let things cool off a bit and there'll be other issues that come to the forefront in the
spring," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, a firm that advises institutional investors on Washington politics. These issues include legislation which is particularly important to Republicans.
on gun control, immigration reform and initial work on simplifying the tax code,
Obama not touching gun control. Mendte 3/26. *Larry, Mendte: President Obama And Gun Control KPLR News -http://kplr11.com/2013/03/26/mendte-president-obama-and-gun-control/]
NEW YORK, NY. (KPLR) The nation is divided over gun control laws and congress is split over it too. Larry Mendte asks if President Obama has given up on his fight. Remember this ending to the state of the union last month. The
president in front of the world demanding a vote for stricter gun control. It was powerful, it was emotional. And as it turns out it was all just theater as the presidential advocate quickly became a realist. By all accounts that was the last real push the white house made for a ban on assault rifles, bullet heavy magazines and background checks. The reality is the legislation never had a chance and the president bailed on it as soon it was obvious that there wasn`t the will
or the votes in congress.
53 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Perez Thumper

Wont drain capital
Turner 3-25 (Douglas, News Washington Correspondent, "GOP unlikely to fight Perez's confirmation"
Buffalo News -- www.buffalonews.com/Article/20130325/OPINION/130329681] GOP unlikely to fight Perez's confirmation In nominating Thomas Perez for secretary of labor, President Obama is making his most polarizing, his most confrontational Cabinet choice ever. And there's little Republicans can do about it except grouse. A zealous liberal star raised in Amherst, who worked his way through Canisius High School, Brown University and Harvard, Perez symbolizes every reason the GOP lost the election rolled into one man. Obama's wedge campaign themes, like the Republicans' alleged war on women and purported attempts to discourage blacks and Hispanics from voting, found echoes in the vigorous prosecutions brought by Perez, as assistant attorney general for civil rights. So far, the only obstacle the GOP minority has put in Perez's path has been the hold placed against his Senate confirmation by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who turned up six years ago as a john in a prostitution scandal involving the D.C. Madam. While the Senate has received Perez's nomination, a date for his confirmation hearing is pending. Republicans from safe states will ask Perez about an act that signaled the Obama administration's attitude toward black political activism the suppression of a federal case against the New Black Panthers. Career Justice Department lawyers charged the Panthers, considered by some to be a hate group, with intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 campaign. Under Obama's new attorney general, Eric Holder, and Perez, the case was summarily dropped. Conservatives have charged that Perez prevaricated in testimony in a U.S. Civil Rights Commission probe of the episode. But a White House official told this column, Perez's statement to the commission was accurateand Perez had not intentionally misled *the investigators+. A Justice Department Inspector General's report did cite a troubling history of polarization in the Voting Rights section, which Perez supervised. A semaphore was sent to Hispanic voters in 2010 when Perez opposed Arizona's tough law permitting police to question people randomly about their immigration status. Arizona passed the law because Republicans believed Obama told federal officers to relax sanctions against illegals, who were almost all Hispanics. Perez said, You can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system. Obama last July followed that up by suspending the deportation of thousands of immigration law violators. Obama won 71 percent of the Latino vote four months later. The White House did not respond to questions about Perez and the Mary Susan Pine case. Justice charged Pine, a Florida pro-life activist, with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. FACE is designed to prevent militants from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics. Perez bragged his section opened 20 civil probes and filed eight complaints under the FACE Act compared to just one over the previous eight years. Justice charged Pine stepped in front of a car and passed a pro-life pamphlet through an open window. The federal judge in West Palm Beach last year threw out the case, wondered aloud why the government prosecuted her and ordered her paid $120,000 for her defense costs. The judge questioned whether the prosecution was the product of a concerted effort between the government and the [abortion provider] which began well before the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine's activities. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the labor movement, and La Raza, the nation's leading Latino advocacy group, have enthusiastically backed Perez's confirmation. With Republicans squirming to win back some of the Hispanic vote, look for the GOP to mount a structured, even muted opposition.
GOP wont fight Perez confirmation.

54 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turner 3-25. [Douglas, News Washington Correspondent, "GOP unlikely to fight Perez's confirmation" Buffalo News -www.buffalonews.com/Article/20130325/OPINION/130329681]
GOP unlikely to fight Perez's confirmation In nominating Thomas Perez for secretary of labor, President Obama is making his most polarizing, his most confrontational Cabinet choice ever. And there's little Republicans can do about it except grouse. A zealous liberal star raised in Amherst, who worked his way through Canisius High School, Brown University and Harvard, Perez symbolizes every reason the GOP lost the election rolled into one man. Obama's wedge campaign themes, like the Republicans' alleged war on women and purported attempts to discourage blacks and Hispanics from voting, found echoes in the vigorous prosecutions brought by Perez, as assistant attorney general for civil rights. So far, the only obstacle the GOP minority has put in Perez's path has been the hold placed against his Senate confirmation by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who turned up six years ago as a john in a prostitution scandal involving the D.C. Madam. While the Senate has received Perez's nomination, a date for his confirmation hearing is pending. Republicans from safe
states will ask Perez about an act that signaled the Obama administration's attitude toward black political activism the suppression of a federal case against the New Black Panthers. Career Justice Department lawyers charged the Panthers, considered by some to be a hate group, with intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 campaign. Under Obama's new attorney general, Eric Holder, and Perez, the case was summarily dropped. Conservatives have charged that Perez prevaricated in testimony in a U.S. Civil Rights Commission probe of the episode. But a White House official told this column, Perez's statement to the commission was accurateand Perez had not intentionally misled [the investigators+. A Justice Department Inspector General's report did cite a troubling history of polarization in the Voting Rights section, which Perez supervised. A semaphore was sent to Hispanic voters in 2010 when Perez opposed Arizona's tough law permitting police to question people randomly about their immigration status. Arizona passed the law because Republicans believed Obama told federal officers to relax sanctions against illegals, who were almost all Hispanics. Perez said, You can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system. Obama last July followed that up by suspending the deportation of thousands of immigration law violators. Obama won 71 percent of the Latino vote four months later. The White House did not respond to questions about Perez and the Mary Susan Pine case. Justice charged Pine, a Florida pro-life activist, with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. FACE is designed to prevent militants from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics. Perez bragged his section opened 20 civil probes and filed eight complaints under the FACE Act compared to just one over the previous eight years. Justice charged Pine stepped in front of a car and passed a pro-life pamphlet through an open window. The federal judge in West Palm Beach last year threw out the case, wondered aloud why the government prosecuted her and ordered her paid $120,000 for her defense costs. The judge questioned whether the prosecution was the product of a concerted effort between the government and the [abortion provider+ which began well before the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine's activities. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the labor movement, and La Raza, the nation's leading Latino advocacy group, have enthusiastically backed Perez's confirmation. With
Republicans squirming to win back some of the Hispanic vote, look for the GOP to mount a structured, even muted opposition.
55 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Guns Thumper

issue specific uq Obama not touching gun control. Mendte 3/26. *Larry, Mendte: President Obama And Gun Control KPLR News -http://kplr11.com/2013/03/26/mendte-president-obama-and-gun-control/]
NEW YORK, NY. (KPLR) The nation is divided over gun control laws and congress is split over it too. Larry Mendte asks if President Obama has given up on his fight. Remember this ending to the state of the union last month. The
president in front of the world demanding a vote for stricter gun control. It was powerful, it was emotional. And as it turns out it was all just theater as the presidential advocate quickly became a realist. By all accounts that was the last real push the white house made for a ban on assault rifles, bullet heavy magazines and background checks. The reality is the legislation never had a chance and the president bailed on it as soon it was obvious that there wasn`t the will
or the votes in congress.
Wont spent capital
Amanpour 3-25. [Christian, reporter, "Gun Control Issues in the United States" CNN International -- lexis]
AMANPOUR: What do you say, then, to your own party, Senator, who obviously do fear this or fear not being able to muster enough votes? The leader of the party in the Senate, Harry Reid, has
dropped the whole idea of assault weapons. And President Obama himself, who said right after Newtown, that he will use every power available in this office by all accounts has not actually spent the kind of political capital to push this forward. Hold all of their link UQ to a very high threshold---issues dont cost PC until theyre at the finish line--if they cant cite a bill discount them
Drum, 10
(Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this
attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and
both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage well, that's
when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill . Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The
political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.
Obamas not spending political capital to promote gun control NYT 3-14, 2013, Party-Line Vote in Senate Panel for Ban on Assault Weapons,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/us/politics/panel-approves-reinstatement-of-assault-weaponsban.html?_r=0 If the Senate passes even modest measures next month, they will face a steep climb in the House. Ive made it perfectly clear if the Senate passes a bill, we will be happy to review it, Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said in an interview on Thursday. In the meantime, our 56 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
committees are continuing to have hearings on this issue, continuing to look at our violent society and the causes of it and what we can do to reduce the incidents of violence in our society. President Obama has made an emphatic call for new gun regulations, but he so far has not spent extensive political capital on the effort. In visits to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers this week, the issue barely came up. The Senate has now advanced legislation addressing three of the most important elements of my proposal to help reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country, he said in a statement.
Obamas not spending capital on gun control even though he supports the idea hes husbanding it for other priorities, including immigration Chris Cillizza 3-22, Newtown didnt change the politics of guns, Washington Post, 3-22-13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/22/newtown-didnt-change-the-politics-ofguns/ The decision this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to drop the assault weapons ban and a ban on highcapacity clips from the broader Congressional effort to curb gun violence sent an unmistakable message: The murders of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., in late 2012 has not changed politics as much as many people thought it
might. Thats a hard political truth to hear for many Americans who viewed what happened in Connecticut as a moment when the conversation about guns in America changed. President Obama pledged action. Vice President Biden chaired a White House task force to recommend legislative and executive solutions to curb gun violence. Longtime gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) insisted that this time past mass murders involving guns had not moved the needle on a desire for stricter gun laws was different. And public polling suggested and continues to suggest that large majorities favor many of the provisions put forward by Bidens task force. Nearly six in 10 Americans support bann ing assault weapons in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, and large majorities back expanding background checks to cover all purchases. A smaller majority though still a majority favor a ban on high-capacity clips. And yet, as
Newtown disappeared further in the political rearview mirror, the same politics that had turned guns into a dormant issue on the national political stage for much of the 1990s and 2000s began to take hold. Senate Democrats up for reelection in Republican-leaning states in 2014 think Montana,
North Carolina, Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana were loathe to vote on things like the assault weapons ban out of the fear that their eventual Republican opponent would use such a vote to cast them as out of touch with the average person in their state. According to Reid, less than 40 Senate Democrats were ready or willing to vote for the assault weapons ban. And
the White House , perhaps sensing that it would need to spend

debt
its political capital on other priorities

change seemed
ceiling/budget fight, immigration and perhaps even climate
to decide that passing something (even something that didnt include major provisions like an assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity clips) was better than passing nothing at all. (President Obama did make clear that he supports the assault weapons ban. But there is a big difference between supporting a piece of legislation and putting the full force of your administration behind convincing wavering members of your party to vote for it. ) The simple fact is that despite all of the assertions that Newtown had changed or would change the political dialogue around guns in this country, it wound up reinforcing much of what we already knew about the difficulties of limiting gun rights.
Obama not pushing gun control in Congress public speeches LA TIMES 2 4 13 [Kathleen Hennessey and Christi Parsons, Obama urges 'common sense' action
on gun violence in Midwest stop, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-gun-violencespeech-20130204,0,4960103,full.story]
Standing in front of an imposing backdrop of police officers and troopers in blue and khaki uniforms, President Obama on Monday touted
his gun violence proposals using an appeal to common sense and bipartisanship and a bit of stagecraft.
We dont have to agree on everything to agree its time to do something, Obama said to applause from an audience of law enforcement officials. I need everybody who is listening to keep the pressure on your member of Congress to do the right thing. Obamas brief day trip to a Minneapolis Police Department facility was his first venture outside of Washington on behalf of his gun measures the informal launch of the bully-pulpit campaign hes vowed to wage on behalf the package. The president again called for universal background checks for gun sales, as well as a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
57 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
But Obamas
{File Name}
campaign-style promotion of his second-term agenda is well underway. Even before his swearing-in, the president vowed to focus his efforts on swaying public opinion, working Washington from the outside with speeches delivered to average voters but aimed at his political opponents in Washington.
The president's advisors say its the best tactic theyve got.
58 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: UN Arms Treaty

Wont drain capital
Smyth 3-23 (Patrick,- former foreign correspondent for the paper having served as both Washington
and European correspondent for the Irish Times, google it) The NRAs opposition to an international conventional arms trade treaty (ATT) had contributed to the scuppering of a July negotiation, and delegates at the resumed talks this week have been hoping that, freed of election pressure, Obama will be more willing to back a treaty with real teeth. The evidence was ominous. The NRA says the treaty threatens the precious second amendment right to gun ownership, despite its explicit language guaranteeing states right to control their domestic arrangements. NRA lobbyists are also seeking treaty language that would distinguish between weapons sales for civilian and military use. Groups including Amnesty International say such a distinction would drive a coach and horses through any serious regulation. But the NRAs grip on US politics is such that any treaty may face an uphill ratification struggle on which Obama may not wish to expend political capital.
Obama isnt pushing it right now --- just because he was criticized for it doesnt trigger our link, which requires actively pushing an agenda item though
59 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: EPA Standards

Oil lobby backlash is only cosmetic --- the standards are tailored to not be too costly
Jacobs 12 (Jeremy,- 'Big Oil' huddles with Obama's 'first friend,' and refining rules stall
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/10/02/1) At 9:30 a.m. on a warm day in March, eight men and two women stepped off Pennsylvania Avenue and into the northwest gate of the White House. They were top-level refining executives from the world's largest oil companies, Chevron Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corp. and BP PLC, escorted by Jack Gerard, the brash president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobby. Ushered into the West Wing, they met Valerie Jarrett, a longtime confidante of President Obama and White House power player whose second-floor office was once occupied by George W. Bush consigliere Karl Rove. In the weeks before the meeting, EPA was advancing toward the White House new restrictions on the amount of sulfur in gasoline. Oil refiners wanted the rules stopped, and they had an argument that could scare any president facing re-election -- the rules would increase gasoline prices. Prices at the pump were rising toward $4 a gallon, a level that had inspired a Republican rebellion in Congress that threatened Obama's election in the summer of 2008. Since that meeting with Jarrett, best known as Obama's "first friend," the sulfur rules have stalled in bureaucratic limbo while environmentalists have stewed. The White House declined to comment or provide information on the specifics discussed at the meeting. Neither would API, but officials there confirmed that delaying development of the rules was a top priority. The timing is suspicious to those who have spent years fighting to lower the sulfur content of the nearly 370 million gallons of gasoline burned every day. "It is appalling to think that the president's chief confidante may have sacrificed public health in order to appease Big Oil," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "This meeting could also explain why EPA was never permitted to move forward on these very critical standards. They may have been killed behind closed White House doors." EPA would say only that it is still developing the Tier 3 standards. The oil company executives who attended did not return messages. The meetings also offer clues about the careful dtente that has emerged between the White House and the oil industry on select issues like Tier 3 and hydraulic fracturing. "A meeting at that level is a great coup for an industry, though maybe not surprising for an industry as powerful as the oil industry," said Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics. "This is the sort of meeting where what is said can go directly to the president." EPA had been widely expected to propose lowering the sulfur standard from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm, bringing the United States in line with many European countries, Japan and even California, which has already made the shift to tighter limits. The regulations have been a top priority for environmental groups, as lower sulfur leads to significantly less harmful air emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide in tailpipe exhaust. The oil industry has staunchly opposed the proposal, arguing that the standards would translate into higher gas prices at the pump and could even force some refineries to close. Momentum builds, along with push-back In the weeks before the March 7 meeting, momentum was building behind the Tier 3 standards. Near the end of January, EPA indicated in its regulatory agenda that it would issue the proposal by March with hopes of finishing it in October. Shortly after that, though, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a congressional committee that the target date for finalizing the rules could have slipped by four months or more. Within the following month, The New York Times editorialized in favor of moving forward and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy fired back at industry with a letter to congressional Republicans rebutting warnings about price increases. Who was at the meeting? On the morning of March 7, 10 representatives of the world's largest oil companies met with Valerie Jarrett, a top White House aide and close confidante of President Obama. According to records released by the White House, the following people were in attendance: The new sulfur limits, 60 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
McCarthy said, would add a penny a gallon to prices, not the 6 to 9 cents per gallon industry studies estimated. Several refineries, McCarthy wrote, were already reducing sulfur content in their fuel. "As many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to European countries gasoline that meets this standard," McCarthy wrote (E&ENews PM, Feb. 28). On top of that, automakers also threw their support behind the proposal, creating an unprecedented level of agreement on an auto air rule at such an early stage, said Paul Billings of the American Lung Association. "I can't recall any of the previous light-duty rules for tailpipes," Billings said, "where we've had this kind of buy-in up front." On the other side of the issue, the oil industry was becoming increasingly vocal about its opposition to the measure. API issued multiple studies on the potential cost impact of the new sulfur standard and warned, in conference calls with reporters, that it would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, Feb. 10). Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of those who met with Jarrett on March 7, told E&ETV's OnPoint in an interview aired several days before the meeting that Tier 3 could shut down refineries. "Most refiners are going to have to do significant upgrades for those hydrotreaters to take out that last little bit of sulfur. So, in essence, you may have some refineries not be able to do it. You may have some refineries that will shut down" (OnPoint, March 1). Republicans on Capitol Hill have repeatedly sought to delay the Tier 3 rules, passing multiple pieces of legislation in the House that target the regulations. But none of those bills has moved in the Senate. Asked about Gerard's meeting with Jarrett, API spokesman Reid Porter wouldn't provide details but forwarded a transcript of a Feb. 10 media briefing featuring Howard Feldman, API's director of regulatory and scientific affairs. Feldman laid out his organization's top concerns with the Obama administration's plans, including greenhouse gas rules for refineries, air standards for industrial boilers and new emissions standards for refineries. But Feldman started and ended with the industry's objection to the Tier 3 sulfur rules. "We would again call on EPA to not issue a Tier 3 vehicle emission proposal before there is a full airing of the impacts, costs and benefits of further reductions of sulfur and vapor pressure in gasoline," Feldman said. In response to questions, EPA issued a statement saying it is still developing the sulfur rules. "The agency continues to engage a diverse group of stakeholders as it develops the proposal and assesses further cost-effective reductions of harmful tailpipe emissions," the statement said. Obama's link to the world It's difficult to clearly define Jarrett's role within Obama's inner circle. Like the previous occupant of her office, Rove, Jarrett is known as a savvy operative whose title, "senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental relations and public liaison," significantly understates her influence. Obama met her on his way up in Chicago politics, and her role has been described as the president's link to the world outside the White House bubble. In early September, The New York Times quoted a former senior White House official who called her "the single most influential person in the Obama White House." Around the time of her meeting with API and the supermajors, lobbyists for industry and environmental groups were both filling up the appointment calendars of administration officials. Public health advocates met with Heather Zichal, Obama's top assistant for climate and energy issues, in early March, before the industry meeting with Jarrett, according to a participant in the meeting. Green groups also had frequent calls with EPA from mid-February into early March. One participant, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said EPA assured them that the proposal was finished by the end of last year, and the agency's top political appointees were comfortable with the package. But rising gas prices were also entering the presidential race around this time. On Feb. 5, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then still a contender for the Republican nomination, said the policy would raise gas prices by a quarter per gallon, citing a flawed API study. API later revised its projections, lowering its estimate to a 6- to 9-cent-pergallon increase (E&ENews PM, March 22). The nonpartisan Politifact.com said Gingrich's claim was "false." "I think that sort of charge, bogus as it was, really intimidated the White House," said O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "And it led to the slowdown." Ahead of the health advocates' early 61 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
March meeting, Gerard and six top executives from API had met with Zichal, who'd been a top aide to former Obama energy and environmental adviser Carol Browner before Browner departed the White House. A little more than a month later, on April 13, Gerard would meet with Zichal again, this time joined by American Chemistry Council Vice President Michael Walls and Regina Hopper, president of America's Natural Gas Alliance. On the same day, Obama issued an executive order creating a new "interagency working group" to promote the safe development of shale gas and coordinate policy on drilling, a move that API had requested. He tapped Zichal to chair the group. In May, Zichal started talking publicly about the Obama administration's new and improved relationship with the oil and gas industry. Invited to speak before reporters at an API luncheon, Zichal touted the administration's support for increased domestic production, challenging the Republican charge that the boom in drilling came despite administration policies to thwart it. She borrowed some of the language of the oil and gas lobby, stressing the importance of oil and gas for job creation and energy security. And she joined the industry in its position that state oil and gas officials, rather than federal agencies such as EPA, should serve as the "lead regulators" of drilling. "It's been incredibly helpful, to have their information to inform our thinking," she said. Since then, the administration has also agreed to an industry request to slow progress on a proposal to require public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands. It extended a deadline for drillers to comply with new air rules, which a spokesman cited from the press room lectern as an example of cooperation with industry. The administration put together a task force set up to resolve drillers' concerns about a multiyear study of hydraulic fracturing by the United States and assembled a working group including EPA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to resolve the gas industry's complaints about EPA figures on the amount of gas that drillers vent into the atmosphere. After her May speech, Zichal sought to tamp down the idea that the administration had gotten too close with "Big Oil." "It's probably safe to say the notion that we rolled out the welcome mat or had this hunky-dory relationship where we're all holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not exactly where we're at today." she said. "It's been very good, but it's not terribly smooth sailing, either." But Gerard didn't hesitate to brag that his industry had brought the administration to heel. "The administration's views are clearly moving," Gerard told reporters. "There has been a recognition that some of the proposals they have made need to be pushed back and need to be modified because many of them were counterproductive to energy production and job creation in the country."
Its assumed by our uniqueness ev and doesnt drain capital

ENS 3-22 (Coming Soon: U.S. Tier 3 Emissions and Fuel Standards)
WASHINGTON, DC, March 22, 2013 (ENS) Sometime before the end of March, the U.S. E nvironmental P rotection Agency is expected to propose new national vehicle emissions and fuel standards by updating a program called Tier 3. Updated Tier 3 standards would cut smog and soot, among other pollutants, by establishing new standards for light-duty vehicles and their fuels to reduce emissions of the most toxic pollutants. Traffic jam, Chicago, Illinois, January 10, 2013 (Photo by Kyle Davis) The standards in this rule are expected to lead to reductions in ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and mobile source air toxics and impose new restrictions on the sulfur content of gasoline. Th EPA will set forth a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor vehicles for both greenhouse gases and non-greenhouse gas pollutants, as requested by a May 2010 an official Memorandum from President Barack Obama. The proposed Tier 3 standards will accomplish this goal by harmonizing with the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) standards for non-GHGs, and by coordinating implementation with EPAs recently-finalized GHG/fuel efficiency standards for 2017 model year and later light-duty vehicles. EPA is also developing these standards in response to Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to establish standards for motor vehicles and to revise such standards from time to time. 62 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Timing of rulemaking The Tier 3 proposal is currently under interagency review and is projected to be signed and published this month. The final rule must be issued by December 2013 in order to provide industry the required lead time for implementation beginning in the 2017 model year, which starts as early as January 2, 2016. The 2017 start date is critical to achieving the harmonized 50-state vehicle program and coordinated implementation with the greenhouse standards a key desire of the auto industry and a fundamental goal of the Tier 3 program. Updating the Tier 3 standards is supported by state health officials, automakers, the emissions control industry, health and environmental groups, and national recreation groups.
63 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: DOMA Court Ruling

Wont happen before the DA, wont drain capital
Reuters 3-26 (on google somewhere)
The Supreme Court signaled reluctance on Tuesday to rule broadly on the question of the right to marriage for gays and lesbians as the justices heard arguments on same-sex marriage for the first time. As thousands of demonstrators on both sides of America's long-standing gay rights divide rallied outside, the court heard a spirited, 80-minute oral argument on whether to let stand a California ban on samesex marriage. Despite the case being one of the most eagerly anticipated legal showdowns of the year, some of the nine justices showed an unwillingness to dive headfirst into the delicate and divisive issue. Though polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage, only nine states recognize it, while 30 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting it. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, gave a clear indication of where he stood when he warned of the court entering "uncharted waters." It was the first of two days of arguments. On Wednesday, the court will consider the related question of whether the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples, should be struck down. Rulings in both cases are not expected until June. In making his antipathy to a broad ruling clear, Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case altogether, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal appeals court ruling that had earlier struck down the California law, known as Proposition 8. If dismissal were the outcome of the Supreme Court's consideration of Proposition 8, gay marriages in California could proceed, but the case would have no impact on other states, as gay rights activists had hoped. It would also mean that the high court could stay silent on the issue, at least in the short term. Kennedy was not the only one with reservations. Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."
64 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Appointment Thumpers

Appointments dont drain PC---empirics
Hutchinson 12/2 Earl Ofari, "Rice Nomination Fight Won't Drain President Obama's Political Capital, 2012, www.eurweb.com/2012/12/rice-nomination-fight-wont-drain-president-obamas-political-capital/
It wont hurt him. All presidents from time to time face some backlash from real or manufactured controversies by opponents over a potential nominee to the Supreme Court, a cabinet or diplomatic post. In 2008, Obama faced backlash when he nominated Eric Holder as Attorney General. A pack of GOP senators huffed and puffed at Holder for alleged transgressions involving presidential pardons he signed off on as Clintons Deputy Attorney General. In the end he was confirmed. The mild tiff over Holder didnt dampen, diminish, or tarnish Obama in his hard pursuit of his major first term initiative, namely health care reform. This was true three years earlier when then President Bush nominated Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was slammed hard by some Democratic
senators for being up to her eyeballs in selling the phony, conniving Bush falsehood on Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. The threat to delay Rices confirmation in the Senate quickly fizzled out, and she was confirmed. This did not distract or dampen Bush in his pursuit of his key initiatives. There was not the slightest inference that in nominating Rice, and standing behind her in the face of Democrats grumbles about her would threaten his push of his administrations larger agenda items. Susan Rice will continue to be a handy and cynical whipping person for the GOP to hector Obama. But the political reality is that the legislative business that Congress and the White House must do never has been shut down by any political squabble over a presidential appointee. The fiscal cliff is an issue thats too critical to the fiscal and economic well -being of too many interest groups to think that Rices possible nomination will be any kind of impediment to an eventual deal brokered by the GOP and the White House. The Rice flap wont interfere in any way with other White House pursuits for another reason. By holding Rice hostage to a resolution of the fiscal cliff peril and other crucial legislative issues, the GOP would badly shoot itself in the foot. It would open the gate wide to the blatant politicizing of presidential appointments by subjecting every presidential appointment to a litmus test, not on the fitness of the nominee for the job, but on whether the appointee could be a bargaining chip to oppose a vital piece of legislation or a major White House initiative. This would hopelessly blur the legislative process and ultimately could be turned against a future GOP president. This is a slippery slope that Democrats and the GOP dare not risk going down. Rice will not be Obamas only appointment at the start of his second term. He will as all presidents see a small revolving door of some cabinet members and agency heads that will leave, and must be replaced. There almost certainly will be another Obama pick that will raise some eyebrows and draw inevitable fire from either the GOP or some interests groups. Just as other presidents, Obama will have to weigh carefully the political fall-out if any from his pick. But as is usually the case the likelihood of any lasting harm to the administration will be minimal to
nonexistent.
65 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Fights
Cards that indicate fights exist should not count as wont pass arguments --momentum will overcome concerns.
Politico, 3-29, p. www.politico.com/story/2013/03/immigration-negotiations-head-closer-to-deal89486.html
Senate negotiators moved closer to a bipartisan deal on immigration reform as interest groups and staff awaited sign off Friday from the Gang of Eight on a program for future low-skilled workers. This progress is the
most positive sign yet that the senators will reach their goal of unveiling a package when they return in
early April from a two-week recess. The visa program was the biggest obstacle in the Senate talks and differences between labor and business over how to craft it put the entire package in limbo just a week ago. Several sources close to the talks told POLITICO that since the breakdown, labor, business and staff have
worked to iron out some of the biggest issues , including wages and whether construction industry
workers would be exempt from the program. Of course, the Gang of Eight members have said that no deal is done until they agree on everything. Sen. Charles Schumer told reporters in Nogales, Ariz., on Wednesday that the negotiators were on track and had 90 percent agreement on the entire package, which will include a pathway to citizenship and border security. The bottom line is we are very close. Id say we are 90 percent there, Schumer said. We have a few little problems to work on but were very hopeful that we will meet our deadline. One labor source said their side has become more encouraged that an agreement was within reach late this week. The source noted that the building trade issue unions have been arguing from the start that the construction industry should receive an exemption or at least a cap in visas is not the only item still outstanding. But the groups have made significant progress on the wage issue that jeopardized the talks last Friday, according to sources familiar with the process. The unions opposed a business-backed plan to bring in many of the temporary workers at the lowest wage rate. In the last few days, all sides have coalesced around a proposal requiring that the visas are distributed more evenly across wage levels so that the median wage of all temporary workers is closer to what the union has been demanding, according to one source. The program would allow businesses bring in up to 200,000 low-skilled workers annually, depending on economic conditions. Ultimately the final decisions will be made by the Senators involved, said Randy Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA said that Republican
lawmakers are feeling the pressure to get an agreement. The urgency to get reform is driving them to move ahead even if business has concerns but theres also the issue of who is going to stand up
for this when Numbers USA and FAIR start to send the emails, Jacoby said. Certainly the members framing the bill will want active business backing them.
66 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Tax Thumper

Theres not even a bill. Bernstein 3-27. [Jonathan, political scientist and WaPo columnist, "Is tax reform the new repeal and replace?" Washington Post -www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/27/is-tax-reform-the-new-repeal-and-replace/]
Were now one month out from the House Republican announcement that they were reserving H.R. 1 for comprehensive tax reform. So far, H.R. 1 is still empty, waiting for action. That may last for a long time. My bet? There will be no scoreable, revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform. The most likely scenario is that there wont even be a bill. Just as the mythical repeal and replace did in the previous Congress, tax reform gives Republicans an illusion of a positive agenda. Granted, and to their credit, this time around its a little more serious; Dave Camps House Ways and Means Committee
has this year continued a series of hearings on tax reform.
67 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: PC Low
Prefer issue specific uniqueness Pol cap is high --- small window to use it to pass his agenda
Mycoff 3-12 (Jason,- associate professor of political science and international relations at University of
Delaware, quoted in an article written by Jerry Rhodes, editor working in the Office of Public Relations at the University of Delaware Talking politics) I think President Obama is in a pretty strong position, Mycoff said. He has a 50 percent-plus approval rating, and this gives him a comfortable cover and the notion that the voters are on his side. While slightly more than half of those polled approve the presidents performance, only 15 percent have a favorable opinion about the job Congress is doing, Mycoff said. The presidents approval rating is not great, but its much better than that of Congress, Mycoff said. What the president is saying to the public as a result is, Im the one you like. Im the one who has the good ideas. Further strengthening Obamas position in pursing his second term agenda is his success at the polls last November. Of all the swing states that people were looking at as capable of deciding the election, the president won 10 and Mitt Romney took only one state, North Carolina, Mycoff said. The president not only got 50 percent of the vote, but he remained standing in 10 of the 11 states where Romney tried to knock him down. While the Democrats increased their majority in the U.S. Senate, the Republicans kept control of the House of Representatives, where they hold a 234 to 201-seat majority. Even with this, the president is in a relatively strong position, Mycoff said. The question is, how can he transform this momentum into action on his second term agenda. Historically, for a variety of reasons, presidents have tended to be less successful in pursing agenda goals, Mycoff said. The first theory is that people feel presidents have already had four years in office and have used up all their great ideas, Mycoff said. Another theory is that scandals usually happen during the second term because people have more time to get into trouble. Examples of the second term curse include court-packing via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the resignation of Richard Nixon, the Iran Contra scandal during Ronald Reagans second term, Bill Clintons impeachment and the failure of George W. Bushs initiative to reform Social Security, Mycoff said. One of the reasons that presidential approval ratings fall during the second term is that people get tired of seeing the same faces after eight years, Mycoff said. They also may tend to reach too far in pushing their agenda and use up their political capital in doing so. For his part, Obama has to do battle with the Republicans in Congress while contending with the myths about presidential second terms, Mycoff said. Despite a fairly divided electorate and Republican intransigence in Congress, Mycoff said there are signs that some compromise may be possible as the president pursues his priority programs. Speaker of the House John Boehner said that there is a widow of opportunity for President Obama during the next 18 months when things will have to get done, Mycoff said. The speaker said that this will take time, but if were all striving for a solution, Im confident that we can get it done.
Its high but things could change

Weigant 1-23 (Chris,- Political writer and blogger at ChrisWeigant.com Handicapping Obama's Second
Term Agenda) Of course, I could be wrong about any or all of these predictions. I have no special knowledge of how things will work out in Congress in the immediate future. I'm merely making educated guesses about 68 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
what Obama will be able to achieve in at least the first few years of his second term. Obama has a lot of political capital right now, but that could easily change soon. The House Republicans seem almost demoralized right now, and Obama has successfully splintered them and called their bluff on two big issues already -- but they could regroup and decide to block everything the White House wants, and damn the political consequences. Unseen issues will pop up both on the domestic and foreign policy stages, as they always do. But, for now, this is my take on how the next few years are going to play out in Washington. Time will tell whether I've been too optimistic or too pessimistic on any or all of Obama's main agenda items. We'll just have to wait and see.
Pol cap is high spilling over to cooperation on key agenda issues

Eilperin 3-23 (Juliet,- White Houses outreach is yielding modest benefits, lawmakers say)
Two weeks after launching a high-profile charm offensive targeting Capitol Hill, President Obama and his aides have taken their effort behind the scenes quietly pushing for cooperation between the White House and congressional Republicans on key disputes. Before departing for Israel last Tuesday, for example, Obama called Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) to discuss immigration reform and other issues. The White House legislative affairs office reached out to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) last week after he spoke of being ignored. And Obama counselor Pete Rouse worked with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on resolving the impasse over Interior Secretary-designate Sally Jewells nomination. Lawmakers and aides say the effort has begun to yield modest dividends. Last week, Congress managed to pass a continuing resolution averting another potential government shutdown. Its sort of like the two sides are looking across the table and thinking, We really are going to have to live in this house for the next four years. Lets divide up who does the dishes: Ill take Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, said Cole, who has broken ranks with his party on occasion. I sort of see the CR as a confidence builder.
High obamas reaching out to GOP

REUTERS 3-27 Next step in Obama charm offensive: Dinner with Republican senators, 3-27-13. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/usa-obama-republicans-idUSL2N0CJ2BX20130327
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama will launch a new round of schmoozing with his political opponents when he sits down to dinner with a dozen Republican senators on April 10. Obama has been trying to gain Republican cooperation on a host of items on his second-term agenda including a deficit-reduction package, an overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and a tightening of gun regulations. Criticized in his first term for keeping his opponents at arms-length, Obama is taking a different tack in the early months of his second term. He and a group of Republican senators had dinner at a Washington hotel earlier this month and the president then visited Capitol Hill to talk to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The April 10 dinner is being organized by Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, according to Isakson's office and a White House official.
69 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
1NC Impact Scenarios
70 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biodefense 1NC Impact

Increase in skilled workers key to biodefense. Roos 3 (Robert, News Editor, July 8, CIDRAP, Biodefense talent shortage said to threaten nation's preparedness,
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/bt/bioprep/news/july0803workforce.html.
The five federal agencies most involved in biodefense face a talent shortage that could keep them from responding effectively to a major bioterrorist attack, according to a new report by a nonprofit group that works on civil service issues. Federal compensation systems and hiring processes badly handicap the agencies in competing with private companies and academia to hire and keep top biodefense specialists, the report states. To make matters worse, up to half of the federal workers in biodefense-related jobs will be eligible to retire within the next few years, and the flow of new talent entering the workforce is static or shrinking. Amid efforts to strengthen the nation's bioterrorism preparedness, the need to build a skilled workforce has been consistently overlooked, says the report by the Partnership for Public Service. The Washington, DC, group describes itself as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to recruiting and retaining excellence in the civil service. "Perhaps more than any other terrorist threat, bioterrorism will place huge burdens on small pools of medical, scientific and technical expertise," the document states. "These organizations are already exhibiting hairline crackssome would say fracturesthat may presage disaster." The report focuses on three agencies in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dsieases (NIAID), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and two in the US Department of Agriculturethe Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Titled "Homeland Insecurity: Building the Expertise to Defend America from Bioterrorism," the report says the demand for biodefense skills is growing while the projected supply is not. By 2010, the demand for biologists is expected to grow by 20% and the need for physicians by 25%. But the number of people earning advanced degrees in biology decreased through the 1990s, and the flow of new medical professionals has stayed generally constant for the past 20 years, the authors report.
Extinction. Clifford Singer, Spring 2001.
Director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Will Mankind Survive the Millennium? The Bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 13.1, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/research/S&Ps/2001-Sp/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm.
In recent years the fear of the apocalypse (or religious hope for it) has been in part a child of the Cold War, but its seeds in Western culture go back to the Black Death and earlier. Recent polls suggest that the majority in the United States that believe man would survive into the future for substantially less than a millennium was about 10 percent higher in the Cold War than afterward. However fear of annihilation of the human species through nuclear warfare was confused with the admittedly terrifying, but much different matter of destruction of a dominant civilization. The destruction of a third or more of much of the globes population through the disruption from the direct consequences of nuclear blast and fire damage was certainly possible.
There was, and still is, what is now known to be a rather small chance that
dust raised by an all-out nuclear war would cause a so-called nuclear winter, substantially reducing agricultural yields especially in temperate regions for a year or more. As noted above mankind as a whole has weathered a number of mind-boggling disasters in the past fifty thousand years even if older cultures or civilizations have sometimes eventually given way to new ones in the process. Moreover the fear that radioactive fallout would make the globe uninhabitable, publicized by widely seen works such as "On the Beach," was a metaphor for the horror of nuclear war rather than reality. The
epidemiological lethal results of well over a hundred atmospheric nuclear tests are barely statistically detectable except in immediate fallout plumes. The increase in radiation exposure far from the 71 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
combatants in
{File Name}
even a full scale nuclear exchange at the height of the Cold War would have been modest compared to the variations in natural background radiation doses that have readily been adapted to by a number of
human populations. Nor is there any reason to believe that global warming or other insults to our physical environment resulting from currently used technologies will challenge the survival of mankind as a whole beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand
There are, however, two technologies currently under development that may pose a more serious threat to human survival. The first and most immediate is biological warfare combined with genetic engineering. Smallpox is the most fearsome of natural biological warfare agents in existence. By the end of the next decade, global immunity to smallpox will likely be at a low unprecedented since the emergence of this disease in the distant past, while the opportunity for it to spread rapidly across the globe will be at an all time high. In the absence of
years. other complications such as nuclear war near the peak of an epidemic, developed countries may respond with quarantine and vaccination to limit the damage. Otherwise mortality there may match the rate of 30 percent or more expected in unprepared developing countries.
With
respect to genetic engineering using currently available knowledge and technology, the simple expedient of spreading an ample mixture of coat protein variants could render a vaccination response largely ineffective, but this would otherwise not be expected to substantially
there is a possibility that a variety of infectious agents may be engineered for combinations of greater than natural virulence and mortality, rather than just to overwhelm currently available antibiotics or vaccines. There is no a priori known upper limit to the power of this type of technology base, and thus the survival of a globally connected human family may be in question when and if this is achieved.
increase overall mortality rates. With development of new biological technology, however,
72 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biotech Good 1NC Impact

High skilled workers key to biotech
Mowad 7. *Michelle, Doctor, Cap on Visas for Skilled Foreign Workers Stifling Biotech, Tech, San Diego Business Journal, 4-23,
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/immigration-law-passports-visas-employment/10582800-1.html] The local biotechnology and technology industries, highly dependent
on very highly skilled workers, are waiting to
see if their foreign job applicants have been awarded work visas.
U.S. immigration officials received twice the maximum number of applications for H-1B visas given to foreign individuals holding advanced degrees on the first day of the application process. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services opened the application process on April 2 for granting visas for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Because the "cap" was exceeded the first day, the USCIS will hold a lottery to select from the applicants who applied on the first and second days. There are enormous economic and health benefits to opening up employment to international candidates, said Kristie Ford with Biocom, a life sciences industry association representing 530-plus member companies in Southern California. "Biotech
is an industry
that is going to continue to boom, and we need a work force that fits the industry needs," she said.
Kevin Carroll, executive director of the San Diego chapter of the American Electronics Association, said technology
Domestic businesses use the H-1B program so they can hire foreign workers In occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as accounting, architecture, education, engineering, law, mathematics, medicine and health, physics, social sciences and theology.
businesses have a history of welcoming the best and brightest workers. He said there is a need to raise the cap. "We need
more (H-1B visas) and we need them now," said Carroll, whose AeA chapter consists of 150 technology-based member businesses. He said that demand for technology employers is extremely high. The unemployment rate for engineers is significantly low at 2 percent, according to Carroll. "This has an impact on the ability of San Diego to stay competitive," he said. Carroll added that a limited number of work visas forces companies to go to extraordinary lengths for recruiting. Each year, the USCIS processes 65,000 H-1B visas. This year, the agency received 124,000 applications in the first two days. In addition, the USCIS will issue an additional 20,000 H-1B visas to foreigners who hold advanced degrees from U.S. universities. USCIS received 13,000 applications for this type of visa within the first two days of the processing period. Individuals who applied for the work visa earlier this month will now have to wait up to four weeks after April 12 before they know if they have been approved or need to leave the country. The wait and importance of H-1B visas to San Diego is at the forefront of many minds. Attorneys from the San Diego office of Duane Morris LLP will host a seminar on the current trends in employment, benefits and immigration law on April 26. Topics to be covered include H-1B visas and the caps being met so early. Lisa Spiegel, an immigration and nationality attorney with Duane Morris, said two years ago applications reached the cap amount in August. Last year, the applications reached the cap amount in May and this
She said highly skilled jobs in the computer and biotechnology industries are driving the need for a higher cap number. "Companies need employees with a certain level of education and skill set, and they can't find enough in the U.S. so they are willing to hire top talent from around the world, but the problem is that they can't get them into the U.S.," she said. She added that domestic companies often resort to opening foreign satellite offices because it is so difficult to bring professionals here. "The U.S. is losing out on attracting foreign workers and top talent to come here, we are losing their taxes, we are losing the company's tax base and we are losing the ability to make the U.S. a place where the top
year on the first day. "It is a sign of the economy growing," she said. "Companies need more high-tech workers." talent wants to come for graduate school," she said. And if foreigners can't be certain they can obtain a work visa after graduation from a U.S. university, they may be reluctant to attend school here, she said. "These are not people coming in illegally, these are people coming in and contributing to our country," she said. The economy of California will suffer as a result of this cap, said Spiegel. "Companies are losing workers and losing the ability to remain competitive because they cannot get enough people to staff their projects," she said. The San Diego office of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC hosted an immigration strategies conference April 19 at Estancia La Jolla Hotel & Spa. William L. Coffman, an attorney with Mintz Levin's Boston office, was a speaker at the event. Coffman reviewed alternative visa options for foreigners who may not be awarded an H-1B visa. Biocom offers several programs aimed to attract a local and national work force. The association created a Life Sciences Success program to facilitate student internships, teacher externships and a summer life sciences boot camp to connect students and teachers with leading companies in San Diego's life sciences community. Last year, 34 students attended boot camp, 44 participated in summer internships and 18 educators carried out externships. "Bottom line is that life sciences companies need a skilled work force," said Ford, associate director of Workforce Development for Biocom. "Biocom is trying to help it two ways - we are trying to grow our homegrown work force, but then we also support raising the H-1B visa cap as well." While many companies are not optimistic applicants will receive these coveted H-1B visas, talk of immigration reform has permeated the market. For now, industry associates including Biocom
and local businesses are attempting to garner support for reform to make life easier for biotechnology and technology.
Solves extinction
73 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Trewavas 00 [Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology University of Edinburgh, GM Is the Best Option We Have, AgBioWorld,
6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/best_option.html] But these are foreign examples; global warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by 5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There are already worrying signs of salinity changes in the deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM
technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In 535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200 million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed
completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered. Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon our environment. There are apparently 100
such volcanoes round the world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation. Only those with agricultural technology sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival. Colliding asteroids are another problem that requires us to be forwardlooking accepting that technological advance may be the only buffer between us and annihilation.
74 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Agriculture 1NC Impact

Ag industrys collapsing now---immigrations key
Serrano, Time magazine, 2012
(Alfonso, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on Immigration Laws, 9-21, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-s-farmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-onimmigration-laws/, DOA: 2-12-13, ldg)
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent
immigration laws have forced waves of undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages with domestic help. The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that weve depended on for 20 or 30 years,
said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that last year Washington farmers part of an $8 billion agriculture industry were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. Its
getting worse each year, says Broetje, and its going to end up putting some growers out of business if Congress doesnt step up and do immigration reform. (MORE: Why Undocumented Workers Are Good for the Economy) Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Extinction
Luger, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 00
(Richard, US Senator from Indiana, and a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2000, Plant power, http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/143/lugar.html, 3/15/13, atl)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One
of the most daunting of them is meeting the worlds need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of [WMDs] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing
nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As
good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe . Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we have. Thats a tall order. My farm in Marion
County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Wel l, its been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science.
75 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The productivity revolution. And our
United States can take a leading position in a success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.
76 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Hegemony 1NC Impact

Immigration reform key to hegemony
Nye 12 Harvard Prof and former US assistant secretary of defense, state and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council (12/10/ 2013, Immigration and
American Power, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye
CAMBRIDGE The U nited S tates is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors as fellow immigrants.In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Partys presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obamas reelection demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obamas second term.Successful reform will be an important stepin preventing the decline of American power .Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century Know Nothing movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigrations effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration
strengthens US power . It is estimated that at least 83 countries and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept
350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.Today, the US is
the worlds third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power : whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growingburden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to particular sectors and to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running
one-quarter of Silicon Valleys technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.Equally important are immigrationsbenefits forAmericas soft power. The fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants upward mobility is attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.Likewise, because the
presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both .Singapores former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lees view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.That is a view that
77 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will
have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
Great power war

Zhang 11 (Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.; Lin Shi is from Columbia
University. She also serves as an independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the World Bank in Washington, D.C., 1/22, Americas decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-andrivalry/) This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess and its economy remains the
worlds largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting, and the inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal
and prosperous, burdened by a dearth of effective conflict regulation. Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe,
India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute great power conflicts . However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together
withers, so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history
attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation . For example, in the late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conques t towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the waves . Such a notion
would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemispheres security to become the ordercreating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal
trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations . However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washingtons withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic power
declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less attractive.
And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973). A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge , the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, antiglobalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
78 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
India 1NC Impact

Visa policy is dragging down US-India relations now-CIR solves
Zee News 2012
(Krishna, Hillary to discuss visa fee hike in NY, 10-1, http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/krishnahillary-to-discuss-visa-fee-hike-in-ny_802978.html, DOA: 2-5-13, ldg)
New York: The
issue of US visa fee hike, which has hurt several Indian IT firms, is expected to come up for discussion when External Affairs Minister SM Krishna meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here on Monday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. India has "consistently" taken up the issue of the visa fee hike with the US and the issue will figure in talks between Krishna and Clinton, official sources said. The US had raised visa fee in 2010 to fund its enhanced costs on
securing border with Mexico under the Border Security Act. Some of the top Indian companies TCS, Infosys, Wipro and Mahindra Satyam were affected by the US action and India is expected to soon seek consultations with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the issue. The sources said that young
Indian professionals working in the US have been the "cornerstone" of India-US relations and are a pillar in the improved bilateral relations that has brought the two countries closer. Hiking visa fees or limiting the number of work visas available to Indian companies is tantamount to "undermining that pillar and growth in India-US relations," they added. "Raising visa fees and putting other barriers is not in consonance with the forward thinking of growing bilateral ties," the sources said. This will be the third bilateral meeting between Krishna and Clinton this year. They had
previously met in India in April and again in June in Washington. The sources said that the two countries have a fairly elaborate agenda and the visa issue is one of the issues in a broader relationship. Krishna will also address the 67th session of the UN General Assembly today.
US/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war

Schaffer, Center for Strategic and International Security Director of the South Asia Program, 02
(Teresita, Building a New Partnership with India, The Washington Quarterly 25.2 (2002) 31-44 , 2/6/13, atl) Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation. For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region. Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India. For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger
leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.
79 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Economy 1NC Impact

Comprehensive immigration reform is key to the economy and highly skilled workers Farrell 12/13/12 (Chris, a contributing editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. From 1986-97, he was on the magazine's staff, as a
corporate finance staff and department editor and then as an economics editor. Farrell wrote Right on the Money: Taking Control of Your Personal Finances and Deflation: What Happens When Prices Fall? Among Farrell's many awards are a National Magazine Award, two Loeb Awards, and the Edward R. Murrow Award. Farrell is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Stanford University. Obamas Next Act: Immigration Reform http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/obamas-next-act-immigration-reform) Washington wont get much of a reprieve from verbal pyrotechnics once the drama of the fiscal cliff is over. Up next: major immigration reform. President Obama
has made it clear that a comprehensive overhaul of the nations badly frayed immigration system is a second-term priority. Many Republican lawmakers are convinced the big takeaway from the 2012
election results is that conservatives need to rethink their hard-line stance on immigrationincluding illegal immigrants. Heres what Washington should do before tackling the tough job of rewriting the immigration laws: Create a quicksilver path to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. (excluding the small number convicted of violent crimes or multiple felonies). The shift in status acknowledges that these foreign-born newcomers, like previous generations of immigrants, overcame significant obstacles to come to the U.S. to make a better life for their families. Illegal immigrants are neighbors heading off to work, sending their kids to school, and attending church. Their everyday lives would vastly improve by moving from the shadows of society into the mainstream. More important from a public-policy perspective, the
change would give a boost to the economys underlying dynamism. What youre doing in the it easier for workers to move between jobs, a relatively small effect, says Gordon Hanson, a professor of economics at the University of California at San Diego. The larger effect from eliminating uncertainty for these immigrants is creating incentives for them to make long-term investments in careers, entrepreneurship, education, homes, and community. Lets state the obvious: A rapid
short run is making transformation of illegal immigrants into legal immigrants isnt in the cards. Amnestylet alone citizenshipis an anathema to large parts of the electorate. Too bad, since the
scholarly evidence is compelling that immigrantsdocumented or not, legal or illegal are a boon to the net economy . Competition fosters economic growth, says Michael Clemens, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington. The economic return from attracting skilled immigrants to the U.S. is well known. Foreign-born newcomers account for some 13 percent of the population, yet they are responsible for one-third of U.S. patented innovations . The nations hightech regions such as Silicon Valley, the Silicon Hills of Austin, Tex., and Bostons Route 128 rely on immigrant scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and employees. Better yet, economist Enrico Moretti at the University of California at Berkeley calculates that a 1 percent increase in the share of college-educated immigrants in a city hikes productivity and wages for others in the city. Less appreciated is how much the economy gains from the efforts of less-skilled immigrants, including illegal workers. Throughout the country, foreign-born newcomers have revived beaten-down neighborhoods as immigrant entrepreneurs have opened small businesses and immigrant families have put down stakes. Immigrant workers have played a vital role keeping a number of industries competitive, such as agriculture and meatpacking. Cities with lots of immigrants have seen their per capita tax base go up, according to David Card, an economist at UC Berkeley. Despite the popular impression that a rising
tide of immigrants is associated with higher crime rates, research by Robert Sampson of Harvard University and others offer a compelling case that its no coincidence that the growing ranks of immigrants tracks the reduction in crime in the U.S. But
dont newcomerslegal and illegaldrive down wages and job opportunities for American workers? Not really. A cottage industry of economic studies doesnt find any negative effect on native-born wages and employment on the local level . On the national level the research shows the impact on native-born Americans doesnt drift far from zero, either positively or negatively. In both cases, immigrants are more likely to complement the job prospects of U.S.-born citizens than they are to compete for the same jobs as U.S.-born citizens, Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California at Davis, writes in Rationalizing U.S. Immigration Policy: Reforms for Simplicity, Fairness, and Economic Growth. The counterintuitive results reflect a numbers of factors. Immigrants expand the size of the economic pie by creating new businesses, new jobs, and new consumers. Middle-class families find it easier to focus on careers with 80 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
affordable immigrant labor offering gardening, child care, and other services. Many illegal immigrants arent fluent in English, so they dont compete for the same jobs as native-born workers. Another factor behind the
lack of direct competition is the higher educational level of native-born Americans. In 1960 about half of U.S.-born working-age adults hadnt completed high school, while the comparable figure today is about 8 percent. The
real downside concern is on the fiscal side of the immigrant ledger. Yes, more taxes would go into Social Security, Medicare, and the like with legalization, but more people would qualify for Medicaid, welfare, and other benefits. At the local level, many school districts are strained financially from educating immigrant children, legal and illegal. That said, the prospect of fiscal costs would diminish as newly legalized immigrant workers move freely around the country seeking jobs, entrepreneurs are comfortable expanding their payrolls, and immigrant parents push their children to live the American Dream. Over time, as entrepreneurs emerge and families are better able to get their kids through high school and college, youre reducing the long-run fiscal claim of the group , says Hanson. There is no economic evidence that making roughly 6 percent of the workforce illegal will benefit the economy. Plenty of research supports the opposite case . A fast track to legality offers Washington a rare twofer: a just move thats economically efficient.
Economic decline causes nuclear war Merlini 11

[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and technology. A Post-Secular World? DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival, Volume 53, Issue 2 April 2011 , pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (357 KB) View Related Articles To cite this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2, 117 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the postWestphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying , perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism , including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
81 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Cyberterror 1NC Impact

Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts.
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html) We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT
firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's
developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly
dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was
there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited S tates, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .
That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks

Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, Structuring for Strategic Cyber Defense: A Cyber Manhattan Project Blueprint, 2008 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program /keynotes/saydjari.pdf)
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation
has a capability to quickly recover its critical information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States.
The National Cyber Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical capabilities. The following end-states
appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure Operations. Create technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by determined adversaries. -Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to critical
US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can attack critical systems without investing substantial resources.
Nuclear war. Lawson 9 (Sean, Assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, Cross-Domain Response to Cyber Attacks and the Threat of Conflict Escalation, May 13th 2009, http://www.seanlawson.net/?p=477)
Introduction At a time when it seems impossible to avoid the seemingly growing hysteria over the threat of cyber war,[1] network security expert Marcus Ranum delivered a refreshing talk recently, The Problem with Cyber War, that took a critical look at a number of the assumptions underlying contemporary cybersecurity discourse in the United States. He addressed one issue in partiuclar that I would like to riff on here, the issue of conflict escalationi.e. the possibility that
show, his concerns are entirely legitimate as
offensive use of cyber attacks escalate to the use of physical force current U.S. military cyber doctrine assumes the possibility cross-domain responses
could
. As I will
of what I call
to cyberattacks. Backing Your Adversary (Mentally) into a Corner Based on the premise that completely blinding a potential adversary is a good indicator to that
82 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}

possibly
adversary that an attack is iminent, Ranum has argued that
The best thing you could War III is launch a cyber attack
that
do if you want to start World
. *...+ When people talk about cyber war like its a practical thing, what theyre really doing is messing with the OK button for starting World War
III. We need to get them to sit the f-k down and shut the f-k up. *2+ He is making a point similar to one that I have made in the past:
Taking away an adversarys ability
to make rational decisions could backfire Removing the capacity for rational action may result in unforeseen consequences
calculations may cause more problems than it hopes to resolve completely
. *3+ For example, Gregory Witol cautions that attacking the decision makers ability to perform rational
, including longer and bloodier battles than may otherwise have been. *4+ Cross -Domain Response So, from a theoretical standpoint, I
think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for even greater concern. Its not jus t worrisome that a hypothetical blinding attack via cyberspace could send a signal of imminent attack
current U.S. policy indicates that kinetic attacks are seen as legitimate responses to cyber attacks U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible
and therefore trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for concern is that (i.e. physical use of force) potentially
. Most worrisome is that current
, something that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports. The reason, in
part, is that the U.S. defense community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a domain of warfare equivalent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own right to blur the online/offline, physical-space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads to some disconcerting conclusions. If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it becomes possible to define cyber attacks (whatever those may be said to entail) as acts of war. But what happens if the U.S. is attacked in any of the other domains? It retaliates. But it usually does not respond only within the domain in which it was attacked. Rather, responses are typically cross -domain responsesi.e. a massive bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) might lead to air strikes against the attacker. Even more likely given a U.S. military way of warfare that emphasizes multidimensional, joint operations is a massive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space), simultaneously. The possibility of kinetic action in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber o perations, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations [5]: Of
while this may seem far fetched it has not been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is implied in current U.S. defense policy documents
course, the possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in cross -domain response. And , , in fact, this statement implies that nited tates against the United States
. From the National Military Strategy of the United States (2004): The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary
capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical weapons. They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent. *6+ The authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare respond to this by saying, Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier,
the U S will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks as being in the same category as nuclear biological and chemical weapons and thus that a nuclear response to certain kinds of cyberattacks may be possible
, , , (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) . It also sets a relevant scalea cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated with a relatively small release of a let hal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness. *7+ Asked by the New York Times to comment on this, U.S. defense officials would not deny that nuclear retaliation remains an option for response to a massive cyberattack: Pentagon and military officials confirmed that the United States reserved the option to respond in any way it chooses to punish an adversary responsible for a catastrophic cyberattack. While the options could include the use of nuclear weapons, officials said, such an extreme counterattack was hardly the most likely response. *8+ The rationale for this policy: Thus, the United States never declared that it would be bound to respond to a Soviet and Wars aw Pact conventional invasion with only American and NATO conventional forces. The fear of escalating to a nuclear conflict was viewed as a pillar of stability and is credited with helping deter the larger Soviet-led conventional force throughout the cold war. Introducing the possibility of a nuclear response to a catastrophic cyberattack would be expected to serve the same purpose. *9+ Non -unique, Dangerous, and In-credible? There are a couple of interesting things to note in response. First is the development of a new acronym, WMD/E (weapons of mass destruction or effect). Again, this acronym indicates a weakening of the requirement of physical impacts. In this new definition, mass effects that are not necessarily physical, nor necessarily destructive, but possibly only disruptive economically or even psychologically (think shock and awe) are seen as equivalent to WMD. This new emphasis on effects, disruption, and psychology reflects both contemporar y, but also long-held beliefs within the U.S. defense community. It reflects current thinking in U.S. military theory, in which it is said that U.S. forces should be able to mass fires and mass effects without having to physically mass forces. There is a sliding scale in which the physical (often referred to as the kinetic) gradually retreatsi.e. massed forces are most physical; massed fire is less physical (for the U.S. anyway); and massed effects are the least physical, having as the ultimate goal Sun Tzus pinnacle of excellence, winning without fighting. But the emphasi s on disruption and psychology in WMD/E has also been a key component of much of 20th century military thought in the West. Industrial theories of warfare in the early 20th century posited that industrial societies were increasingly interdependent and reliant upon mass production, transportation, and consumption of material goods. Both industrial societies and the material links that held them together, as well as industrial people and their own internal linkages (i.e. nerves), were seen as increasingly fragile and prone to disruption via attack with the latest industrial weapons: airplanes and tanks. Once interdependent and fragile industrial societies were hopelessly disrupted via attack by the very weapons they themselves created, the nerves of modern, industrial men and women would be shattered, leading to moral and mental defeat and a loss of will to fight. Current thinking about the possible dangers of cyber attack upon the U.S. are based on the same basic premises: technologically dependent and therefore fragile societies populated by masses of people sensitive to any disruption in expected standards of living are easy targets. Ultimately, however, a number of researchers have pointed out the pseudo-psychological, pseudo-sociological, and a-historical (not to mention non-unique) nature of these assumptions. [10] Others have pointed out that these assumptions did not turn out to be true during WWII strategic bombing campaigns, that modern, industrial societies and populations were far more resilient than military theorists had assumed. [11] Finally, even some military theorists have questioned the assumptions behind cyber war, especially when assumptions about our own technology dependence-induced societal fragility (dubious on their own) are applied to other societies, especially non-Western societies (even more dubious). [12] Finally, where deterrence is concerned, it is important to remember that a deterrent has to be credible to be effective. True, the U.S. retained nuclear weapons as a deterrent during the Cold War. But, from the 1950s through the 1980s, there was increasing doubt among U.S. planners regarding the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence via the threat of massive retaliation. As early as the 1950s it was becoming clear that the U.S. would be reluctant at best to actually follow through on its threat of massive retaliation. Unfortunately, most money during that period had gone into building up the nuclear arsenal; conventional weapons had been marginalized. Thus, the U.S. had built a force it was likely never to use. So, the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s saw the development of concepts like flexible response and more emphasis on building up conventional forces. This was the big story of the 1980s and the Reagan build-up (not Star Wars). Realizing that, after a decade of distraction in Vietnam, it was back in a position vis-a-viz the Soviets in Europe in which it would have to rely on nuclear weapons to offset its own weakness in conventional forces, a position that could lead only to blackmail or holocaust, the U.S. moved to create stronger conventional forces. [13] Thus, the question where cyber war is concerned: If it was in-credible that the U.S. would actually follow through with massive retaliation after a Soviet attack on the U.S. or Western Europe, is it really credible to say that the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons to a cyber
deterrence assumes an adversary capable of being deterred Will al-Qaida be deterred How about a band of nationalistic or even just thrill-seeker bandwagon hackers for hire it assumes clear lines of command and control even cyber war theorists will admit that it is doubtful that states have complete control over their armies of hacker mercenaries
attack, no matter how disruptive or destructive? Beyond credibility, makes many other assumptions that are problematic in the cyber war context. It . Can most of those who would perpetrate a cyber attack be deterred? ? , ? Second, assisted to a great degree by states. But ultimately, . How will deterrence play out in this kind of scenario
. Sure, some hacker groups might be funded and
83 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Deficit 1NC Impact

CIR solves the deficit Tucker 10 Cynthia is a columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We need immigrants to help pay the deficit, Nov 19,
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/11/19/we-need-immigrants-to-help-pay-the-deficit/
Recommendations for taming the deficit include raising the retirement age, raising the federal gas tax and ending the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Ouch! But there is a palliative that would ease the pain: Put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to legalization. And dont touch birthright citizenship! Yes, you heard that right: Granting legal residency to illegal immigrants will eventually help sop up some of the federal budgets red ink. I
know thats counterintuitive since so many citizens have come to believe that Mexican landscapers and Guatemalan maids are a drain on the treasury. But the fact is that
their relative youth is just what the U.S. economy needs. The explosion of the long-term deficit is largely the consequence of an aging population, with more retirees depending on taxes from fewer workers. While the recession, two unfunded wars and Bush-era tax cuts fueled the immediate deficit, a tsunami of long-term red ink will swamp the budget in about ten years, as a massive wave of baby boomers leaves the workplace. So we need as many younger workers as we can find to help support the coming crush of senior citizens. The U.S. is lucky enough to have a higher birthrate than many other Westernized democracies, even among native-born women. Immigrants are an added demographic bonus. When some people think of immigrants, they think of people coming in and immediately absorbing our resources, said Emory economist Jeffrey Rosensweig. Most immigrants come here to work. Theyre young workers, and theyre paying taxes. Why not add all of them to the federal tax rolls?
Deficit reduction key to prevent economic collapse, abrupt retrenchment and great power war Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad, the one and only, was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations
during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. National Review Online, 2-8, The Economy and National Security, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad?pg=3, jj
economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the U nited S tates position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled
Today,
asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The
decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to 84 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the
late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet ec onomic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If
the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These
trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and
managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those providing enforceable rule of law set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today.
The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined
a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obamas debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While Chinas economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done.
85 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. Chinas military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on Chinas periphery particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam in ways that complicate Beijings strategic calculus. Chinas mercantilist policies and currency manipulation which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijings over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.
Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
86 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Defense Industrial Base 1NC Impact

high skilled workers key to defense industrial base. Guay 7. [Terrence, Clinical Assistant Professor of International Business at The Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State
University, where he teaches international business and the business environment of Europe, GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE Strategic Studies Institute -- http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB756.pdf]
Highly skilled workers are sought by technology and other high-valueadded firms, especially those in the defense sector. In many cases, globalization has made these workers more mobile than ever
Globalization has impacted labor, too.
before, and in those cases where mobility is restricted, companies have come to them. There is considerable debate over the extent to which the United States is
more than 40 percent of scientific and engineering talent will leave the U.S. workforce in the next decade or so.91 More then 50 percent of U.S. computer scientists and nearly a quarter of
experiencing a skills gap. According to the National Science Foundation, its science and engineering workforce are from abroad. Entrepreneurs from China and India accounted for almost one-third of high-tech start-ups in Silicon Valley in the 1990s. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the United States are foreign born.92 Half of Chi nas college graduate earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 percent in the United States. South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the United States, graduates about the same number of engineers as U.S. universities do.93 Results from the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study showed U.S. fourthgraders were outperformed by only three countries (Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore) in both math and science, but that eighth-graders were outperformed in both fields by seven countries (Chinese Taipei, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Estonia, and Hungary).94 U.S. eight-graders ranked 15th (out of 45 countries) in math and tied for ninth in science. There
seems to be no shortage of reports that the United States is falling behind in its ability to educate and train its own citizens for the high-tech workplace of the 21st century. Part of the explanation behind
the falling behind scenario is that developing countries have devoted large amounts of resources in recent years to bring u p the average education level of their citizens, so U.S. students have not so much been doing more poorly than previous generations of U.S. students, but students in other countries are catching up quickly to U.S. levels. But the consequence of this shift is that workers
in other countries will soon become as skilled and trained as U.S. workers, thereby reducing labor advantages that the United States has long held. On the
other hand, other studies suggest that the skills shortage may be less severe. For example, in proportion to its population, the United States conferred 55 percent more computer science, information technology (IT), and engineering degrees than China, and almost four times more than India.95 A survey by the consultancy McKinsey revealed that the pool of Chinese engineers suitable to work for multinationals is about 160,000, less than one-third of the graduates.96 Similarly, while three million students graduate from Indian universities each year, only about 25 percent of engineering graduates and 10-15 percent of general college graduates are considered suitable for direct employment in the offshore IT and business process outsourcing industries, according to a study by Indias National Association of Software and Service Companies. The consequence of such shortages is that highly skilled workers, particularly in engineering and the sciences, are in high demand everywherethe United States, Europe, China, and India. The competition among companies to hire and retain such workers is likely to be fierce in the short to medium term. Regardless of where the United States stands in its ability to generate a highly skilled workforce, it is clear that such talent is in high demand throughout the world. Other
countries, including Taiwan, Korea, India, and China are trying to retain talented workers and lure expatriates back home by increasing investments in science and offering better pay and opportunities.97 However, in the United States and most European countries, there has been a backlash against immigration in recent years. Indeed, the
developed countries, such as Australia and Canada, have become aggressive acquirers of talented immigrants and students. Developing immigration debate almost certainly has been the most discussed domestic policy issue in the United States in 2006. Accordi ng to the National Science Board, onefourth of all collegeeducated workers in science and engineering occupations in 2003 were foreign born.98 This figure rises to 40 percent for doctorate degree holders in these occupations, and even higher in
Despite these high numbers, it often is difficult for U.S. firms to hire foreign workers in engineering and the sciences , given the procedures implemented since the 9/11 attacks. Hiring foreign workers, including those attending U.S. universities, is important
some fields like computer science (57 percent), electrical engineering (57 percent), and mechanical engineering (52 percent).
particularly to technology-oriented firms, since numerous studies show serious math and science deficiencies among native-born U.S. students. Craig Barrett,
it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities because of security concerns and improved education options in their own countries.99 Those foreign students who are allowed into the United States and complete their studies are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or better employment opportunities. The H1-B visa program, which provides a
chairman of Intel, argues that
process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists, currently is capped at 65,000 people per year and is oversubscribed. Intels Barrett, among other technology
leaders including Microsofts Bill Gates, have criticized the restrictions on foreign workers, including a cap of 140,000 on the number of green cards that allow permanent employment, and long processing delays meaning waits up to 7 years.100 The defense industry is insulated partly from some of these problems. Many high-tech companies, if faced with a lack of engineering and science workers in the United States, can simply go to those locations where such workers are more abundant. But given the national security concerns associated with the defense sector, it is more difficult (although not impossible) to move research and development (R&D) abroad. In any case, if there is a limited talent pool within U.S. borders, defense industry firms at the least will be forced to allocate greater resources to attract and retain such workers. Yet statistics show that where and how R&D funds are spent can be a critical source of economic competitiveness. According to the National Science 87 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Foundation (NSF), federally funded R&D totaled $127.6 billion in 2006, of which $74.8 billion, or 58.6 percent, was allocated for national defense (including DoDs military activities, Department of Energys *DoE+ atomic energy defense programs, and defense-related R&D of Department of Homeland Security [DHS]).101 In its most recent projections, the NSF expected total R&D in the United States to amount to $312.1 billion in 2004, with $199.0 billion coming from industry, $93.4 billion from the federal government, $11.1 billion from colleges and universities, and $8.6 billion from other nonprofit institutions.102 R&D expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) have ranged between 2.5-2.7 percent annually over the past decade. As a percentage of GDP over the period 2000- 03, the United States ranks sixth (behind Israel, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Iceland) and slightly ahead of South Korea, Switzerland, Denmark, and Germany. The increasing economic influence of Asia is evident in R&D spending. According to a United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005 report, Asias share of global research spending rose from 27.9 percent in 1997 to 31.5 percent in 2002, the most recent year for which reliable figures were available.103 Over the same period, Europes share fell from 28.8 percent to 27.3 percent, and North Americas from 38.2 percent to 37.0 percent. Finally , according to the European Defense Agency, participating member
While the international comparisons are favorable toward the United States, one important element is where the R&D funds are being spent. Increasingly, U.S. dollars are being spent overseas in centers in China and India, according to an annual report by the Battelle Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine.105 While U.S. companies can deduct expenses for R&D to reduce their U.S. tax obligations, actual research and development can take place anywhere in the world. Thus, companies can deduct expenses for R&D undertaken at overseas offices and laboratories. IBM opened an innovation center in China during 2004 that will double the size of its
countries (all 25 EU members except Denmark) are expected to spend 2.3 billion on defense research and technology in 2006about 1.3 percent of total defense expenditure.104
existing IBM China Research Lab, and about one-third of Microsofts 700-person research division are located outside the United States. Data on the offshoring of R&D is anecdotal at this point, since data are not available on how much R&D U.S. companies are conducting abroad. For
companies in the defense industry, this trend is a potential problem since they will be under competitive pressure to utilize foreign research knowledge but will face significant restrictions by DoD. To the extent that national economic competitiveness in general, and a thriving defense industry in particular, is built upon a well-educated and skilled workforce, governments and companies will need to devise policies that ensure they have among the best pool of talent in the world. While the international mobility of workers has yet to catch up to the mobility of companies,
globalization gradually is leveling this playing field.
That deters war with China and Russia and solves terrorism Watts 8. *Barry D, Senior Fellow @ The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments The US Defense Industrial Base, Past, Present and
Future, CBA, http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In.pdf]
Since the 1950s, the
US defense industrial base has been a source of long-term strategic advantage for the United States, just as it was during World War II. American defense companies provided the bombers and missiles on which nuclear deterrence rested and armed the US military with world-class weapons, including lowobservable aircraft, wide-area surveillance and targeting sensors, and reliable guided munitions cheap enough to be employed in large numbers. They also contributed to the development of modern digital computers, successfully orbited the
first reconnaissance satellites, put a man on the moon in less than a decade, and played a pivotal role in developing the worldwide web. Critics have long emphasized President Eisenhowers warning in his farewell television address that the nation needed to guard against the acq uisition of undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. Usually forgotten or ignored has been an earlier, equally important, passage in Eisenhowers January 1961 speech: A
vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Eisenhowers warning about undue influence, rather than the need to maintain American military strength, tends to dominate co ntemporary discussions of the US defense industrial base. While the percentage of US gross domestic product going to national defense remains low compared to the 1950s and 1960s, there is a growing list of defense programs that have experienced problems with cost, schedule, and, in a few cases, weapon performance. In fairness, the federal government, including the Department of Defense and Congress, is at least as much to blame for many of these programmatic difficulties as US defense firms. Nevertheless, those critical of the defense industry tend to concentrate on these acquisition shortcomings. The main focus of this report is on a larger question. How prepared is the US defense industrial base to meet the needs of the US military Services in coming decades? The
Cold War challenge of Soviet power has largely ebbed, but new challenges have emerged. There is the immediate threat of the violence stemming from Salafi- Takfiri and Khomeinist terrorist groups and their state sponsors, that have consumed so much American blood and treasure in Iraq; the longer-term challenge of authoritarian capitalist regimes epitomized by the rise of China and a resurgent Russia; and, not least, the worsening problem of proliferation, particularly of
nuclear weapons. In the face of these more complex and varied challenges, it would surely be premature to begin dismantling the US defense industry. From a competitive perspective, therefore, the vital question about the defense industrial base is whether it will be as much a source of long-term advantage in the decades ahead as it has been since the 1950s.
88 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns case/More Impacts
89 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns China Economy

Expansion of skilled labor visas strengthens Chinas economy Los Angeles Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-bysource-countries.html)
"Comprehensive immigration
reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China ." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy , Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not ," he said. Hart 2/12, Melanie, Policy Analyst for Chinese Energy and Climate Policy at American Progress, The Case for More Chinese Investment In
U.S. Clean Energy, 2/12, http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/185056/chinese-direct-investment-us-clean-energy President Obamas administration made great strides in his first term toward building a sustainable U.S. clean energy economy that will provide jobs for middle-class Americans and reduce our nations dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. But more work is needed. Moving toward a clean energy economy in the United States will require more than $1 trillion of investment in the electricity grid, new fuels, mass transit, power generation, and manufacturing. An investment of this size will require the United States to mobilize every possible source of capital, including foreign direct investment. While the United States has a sizeable investment need, Chinese investors are eager for new opportunities in foreign marketsand the U.S. market in particular. Their goals are not always perfectly aligned with ours, nor do U.S. market opportunities always perfectly meet their needs. That said, however, there are times when Chinese direct investment in the U.S. clean energy economy would be mutually beneficial. Chinese enterprises would like to invest in the United States for many reasons, including: Some potential investors are seeking infrastructure investments with stable returns. Others are seeking access to innovative technology and processes or high-yield opportunities in manufacturing. Directly investing in the United States can give Chinese enterprises a local presence and a closer relationship with U.S. consumerstwo critical prerequisites for building and promoting Chinese name-brand goods and services. All of these possible reasons for Chinese investment in the United States are supported by the fact that the
Chinese government has amassed more than $3 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves. They cannot convert those reserve holdings into Chinese renminbithe official currency of Chinaand invest them domestically without triggering inflation, so Chinese banks and enterprises are constantly looking for good investment opportunities abroad. Over the past 5 to 10 years, Chinese
enterprises have grown more adept at operating in foreign markets, and that has triggered a shift from lower-yield portfolio investments where Chinese entities buy minority shares in foreign assetsto higher-yield direct investmentswhere Chinese entities actually play an operational role by building and operating manufacturing plants abroad. Chinas total cumulative outward
foreign direct investment now amounts to around $230 billion worldwide. Annual Chinese direct investments in overseas markets grew from
less than $2 billion in 2004 to more than $40 billion in 2009, and some analysts predict that Chinas total global stock in outward foreign direct investment could reach $2 trillion by 2020. If handled correctly, these
investments could play a large role in revitalizing
economies worldwide, including the U.S. economy.
90 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Hegemony
Immigration reform necessary to sustain the economy and hegemony Javier Palomarez, Forbes, 3/6/13, The Pent Up Entrepreneurship That Immigration Reform Would
Unleash, www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-up-entrepreneurship-that-immigrationreform-would-unleash/print/
The main difference between now and 2007 is that today
the role of immigrants and their many contributions to the American economy have been central in the countrys national conversation on the issue. Never before have Latinos been so central to the election of a U.S. President as in 2012. New evidence about the economic importance of immigration reform, coupled with the new political realities presented by the election, have given reform a higher likelihood of passing. As the President & CEO of the countrys largest Hispanic business association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC),
which advocates for the interests of over 3 million Hispanic owned businesses, I have noticed that nearly every meeting I hold with corporate leaders now involves a discussion of how and when immigration reform will pass. The USHCC has long seen comprehensive immigration
reform as an economic imperative, and now the wider business community seems to be sharing our approach. It is no longer a question of whether it will pass. Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually every sector and every state, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economys growth and puts Americas global leadership in jeopardy . Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our country wont be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it has done for decades. Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms
generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants. Leading
brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder in Silicon Valley it was almost half of new companies. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S. would look like if they were provided legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution, imagine the pent up entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have come here and risk all in the first place. Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses. While
immigrants are both critically-important consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well. Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that native-born workers dont usually want. For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in 2012 aimed at forcing self-deportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity
Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate the need to entice high-skilled immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide virtual march for immigration reform to pressure policymakers to remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda
as crops were left to wither and jobs were lost. calculated in 2010 that comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the countrys GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue enough to fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years. As Congress continues to wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know: The
American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
American power solves nuclear war and dampens all conflict

Barnett 11
91 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Thomas, American military geostrategist and Chief Analyst at Wikistrat, The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads, AM Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the
U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our nowperpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered.
Immigration reform spurs military nanotech turns all heg args

Carafano 7 (James, Ph.D., Deputy Driector Institute for International Studies and Director of the Center for Foreign Policy Studies Heritage Foundation, and Andrew Gudgel, Nanotechnology and National Security: Small Changes, Big Impact, Heritage Backgrounder, 9-21, http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/09/Nanotechnology -and-National-Security-Small-ChangesBig-Impact) Nanotechnology is an emerging transformational technology that promises wide and dual-use applications in many fields, particularly national security. The U nited S tates is the world's acknowledged leader in nanoscience, but stiff international competition is narrowing America's lead. Many other countries, specifically European nations and China, have large, established nanotechnology initiatives. Most commercial applications of nanotechnology are still nascent. In the near term,
the most promising developments for national security will likely come from government research rather than from the application of commercial off-the-shelf nanotechnologies. To meet national security needs in the near term, the U.S. government needs to adopt new legislative and policy innovations, including promoting long-term research, distributing federal grants more widely, and promoting scientific travel and exchanges to maintain a supply of skilled experts.
Over the long term, the government should remove capital and regulatory barriers to lower the cost of research and emerging technologies and should address safety and environmental issues. What Is Nanotechnology? "Nanotechnology" is derived from "nano," the Greek
word for dwarf. It involves manipulating and manufacturing particles at the microscopic and even atomic levels, between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers. By comparison, a human hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. Combining the ability to manipulate molecular structures with advances in genomics and other biological sciences has created a wealth of new research opportunities. By putting these unique properties to work, scientists are developing highly beneficial dual-use products in medicine, electronics, and many other industries that will also provide enormous defense and homeland security capabilities. These scientific developments are creating new industries. The market opportunities are so substantial that many government and business leaders describe nanotechnology as "the next industrial revolution." Nanotechnology was incorporated into manufactured goods worth more than $30 billion in 2005, and this figure is projected to reach $2.6 trillion by 2015.[1] However, since nanotechnology is relatively new, government research is critical for developing applications of this new technology, particularly in the field of national security. A Small Beginning The birth of nanotechnology can be traced to 1981, when Gerd Binning and Heinrich Rohrer, scientists at IBM Research, Zurich, created the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). The STM was the first instrument capable of performing operations at the atomic scale, such as adding or removing individual electrons to or from atoms and molecules. It gave researchers the unprecedented ability to change materials "from the bottom up." The two scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics for their invention in 1986.[2] Within a few years, scientists had demonstrated the capability to manufacture nanoparticles. The discovery of fullerines (isomers or molecules of pure carbon that can be manipulated into unique structures, such as "buckyballs") in 1985 and carbon nanotubes (manufactured one-atom-thick sheets of carbon rolled into cylinders) in 1991 sparked further interest in nanotechnology. These molecules have novel properties that make them potentially useful in a wide variety of applications, including electronics, optics, and other fields of material science. They also exhibit extraordinary strength and unique electrical properties. Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel at one-sixth the weight, while buckyballs are hollow, making them well-suited for use as carriers of drugs or other materials.[3] Nanotechnology Today Current commercial nanotechnological products are limited to first-generation passive applications, such as nanoparticles, coatings, catalysts, and nanocomposites (materials formed from organic and inorganic components at the nanoscale). Products include cosmetics, automobile parts, clothing, and sports equipment. Research is quickly leading nanotechnology to converge with other fields, including biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. Using techniques commonly found in semiconductor manufacture, researchers have created adjustable "quantum dots" by making "wells" and "corrals" on silicon chips where individual electrons can be trapped and held. The shell of electrons around every atom determines its properties, such as color and electrical conductivity. By filling these quantum corrals with differing numbers of electrons, researchers can create artificial "atoms" that have the same properties as any element on- or beyond-the periodic table, although these "atoms" are temporary and lack nuclei. Simply adding or subtracting electrons from these wells changes the type of "atom." Grids of quantum corrals built across the surface of a silicon semiconductor chip would allow the creation of artificial molecules, which would theoretically allow the entire chip to have-at least on its surface-the physical properties of almost any material imaginable. Some aspects of current nanotechnology also blur the line with biotechnology. For example, nanoparticles (clusters of tens to hundreds of individual atoms) have been used in medical research to fight diseases, including cancer. Researchers are also exploring ways to manipulate the genetic code that have tremendous implications in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. A nanoparticle that encapsulates medication with biomolecules could be designed to bind only to the cells that need the medicine. Such research could also affect other disease research and possibly change the medical response to national catastrophic disaster.[4] Nanophotonics is another growing field of nanotechnology research. Photonics, which uses light, is the ability to control photons for the purpose of carrying, processing, storing, or displaying information. Well-known applications of photonics include fiberoptic cable, television screens, computer displays, and laser and imaging systems. In nanophotonics, scientists control the morphology of materials and, as a result, can now change how a material refracts light. Thus, nanophotonics is not simply the scaling-down of existing systems, but utilizing physics, functionalities, and design strategies that are different from regular photonics to produce tiny waveguides, microscopes on a single chip, better optical communications equipment, and chemical and biological sensors.[5] National Security Implications In 2000, the federal government established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to promote nanotechnology research at the federal level. The NNI is managed by the Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council, an interagency organization of 26 federal agencies that coordinates planning, budgeting, and program implementation among defense and national security stakeholders. This structure is vital to disseminating information and fostering cross-disciplinary networks and partnerships. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are NNI members. In addition to funding research, federal support through the NNI provides crucial funds for the creation of nanotech support infrastructure, such as nanoscale research labs, and for educational resources to develop a skilled workforce capable of advancing nanotechnology. These programs encourage business, including small business, to pursue nanotechnology opportunities.[6]
Military Applications. All branches of the U.S. military are currently conducting nanotechnology 92 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
research, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Air Force Office
of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Air Force is heavily involved in research of composite materials.[7] Among other projects, the Navy Research Laboratory's Institute for Nanoscience has
studied quantum dots for application in nanophotonics and identifying biological materials.[8] In May 2003, the Army and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, a joint research collaboration to develop technologies to protect soldiers better.[9] Nanotechnology has numerous military applications. The most obvious are in materials science. Carbon nanotubes and diamond films and fibers have higher strength-to-weight ratios than steel, which allows for lighter and stronger armor and parts for vehicles, equipment, and aircraft. Such upgraded military Humvees would better protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small-arms fire. In another application, adding nickel nanostrands (ropes of material no wider than a few molecules), which can conduct electricity, could make aircraft more resistant to lightning strikes. The nickel strands also have magnetic properties that may prove useful in filters and energy storage devices.[10] The U.S. Army is actively pursuing nanotechnology for use in soldiers' uniforms, equipment, and armor. As part of the planned Objective Force Warrior Soldier Ensemble, the Army hopes to create a uniform that provides flexible armor protection for soldiers' limbs through the use of shear thickening liquids that solidify when force is applied to them. This would greatly reduce the weight that a soldier must carry. (Current body armor weighs around 25 pounds.) Other features of the planned uniform include medical sensors, medical treatment capabilities, communications, and individual environmental control for the soldier and integrated thermal, chemical, and biological sensing
Nanotechnology would allow for more precise control of fuel combustion and detonation of explosives. Explosives and propellants could be constructed atom by atom to optimal particle sizes and ratios of ingredients so that the materials approach their theoretical limits of energy release. This would lead to smaller, more powerful rockets, propellants, warheads, bombs, and other explosive devices. For slower release
systems woven into the garment's fabric.[11]
of energy, nanotechnology would allow for more powerful batteries, fuel cells, photovoltaic panels, and perhaps even more exotic methods of generating electrical power. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently developed piezoelectric fibers, which someday may be used in fabrics that generate their own electricity, completely eliminating the need for batteries.[12] In electronics, nanotechnology would allow the creation of ever-smaller computers and sensors, leading to integrated
packages that could sense, discriminate, decide, report information, and provide control input to other devices. For example, tires that sense the surface over which they are traveling could automatically adjust tire pressure to maintain optimal traction. Smart sensors could be used in single-chip chemical and biological agent laboratories that would be smaller, faster, and more accurate than current testing methods. They could also be attached to miniature disposable sensor platforms, allowing monitoring of a large battlespace at minimal cost, effort, and danger to soldiers. In the more distant future, combining nanocomputers, sensors, and nanomechanical architectures into one system would make possible autonomously targeted and guided projectiles, such as bullets and rockets. Nanotechnology could also improve communications and information processing, whether on the battlefield or with the Oval Office, through microscopic computers, switches, lasers, mirrors, detectors, and other optical and electrical devices. The laws of physics and optics change fundamentally at the near-atomic level. Instead of being masked by the manipulation of particles on the surface, materials can be changed at the optical electronic level. Materials that display one optical or electronic property at the macro level may display a different property at the nanometer level. Remarkable mechanisms become possible, such as negatively refractive optics that bend light at angles and in directions otherwise impossible.[13] Such devices could lead to the development of lenses that focus almost instantaneously and light-bending camouflage that changes as the solider or vehicle moves. One theoretical and exotic use of nanophotonic materials would be fiberoptic waveguides that actually strengthen the light beams passing through them. These could be used for longdistance, strategic-level communications systems or high-power narrow-beam lasers. With nanophotonics, optical computing, data storage, and signal processing become possible. If the Defense Department is to remain a leader in exploiting nanotechnology, the Pentagon must ensure that it adequately understands how nanotechnology could be exploited for U.S. security and competitive advantage. Homeland Security Applications. Only 0.25 percent of the government's 2004 funding for nanotechnology goes to the Department of Homeland Security. This is inadequate given that nanotechnology could play a major role in advancing the DHS capabilities. Nanomaterials could be used to create highly sensitive sensors capable of detecting hazardous materials in the air. For example, carbon-based nanotubes are relatively inexpensive and consume minimal power. Other areas of nanotechnology pertinent to homeland security are emergency responder devices. Lightweight communications systems that require almost no power and have a large contact radius would give rescuers more flexibility. Nanotech robots could be used to disarm bombs and save trapped victims, reducing the risks to rescue workers. Enlisting the Private Sector In the United States, the commercial nanoscience industry is composed of traditional industrial sectors, newly formed startups, Fortune 500 companies, and academic research institutions. These groups will play a significant role in future developments of nanotechnology. The most recent analysis estimates that nanoscience will produce $2.6 trillion in economic output by 2015.[14] The U.S. is currently the global leader in nanotechnology. The National Nanotechnology Initiative coordinates over $1 billion in annual federal research and grants. Total U.S. public and private spending on nanotechnology research and development totals about $3 billion annually, or one-third of the estimated $9 billion that is spent worldwide.[15] Global competition in nanotechnology is fierce, and many countries are challenging the U.S.'s supremacy, specifically in the European Union and Asia. The EU is strengthening its research and development capabilities by promoting partnerships among companies and universities through its Nanosciences/Nanotechnology Action Plan for Europe. The Chinese government has implemented initiatives that employ over twice as many engineers as are working in nanotechnology in the U.S.[16] Thus, U.S. government-sponsored research is still vital if America is to remain a global leader in the national security applications of nanotechnology. Toward the Future Congress and the Administration have done much to encourage the development of nanoscience. The challenge is to maintain this momentum, facilitating commercial innovation and the application of new advances for national security purposes. A few key initiatives would bolster America's global leadership in the science of small things. Smarter Funding. In the near term, government research and development funds will continue to play a critical role in jump-starting national security innovations in nanotechnology. Congress should continue to provide strong support for nanoscience research programs in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that support national security purposes. Big Industry is currently averse to risk and is not providing the innovations needed for national security. In fact, investments in the private sector have been concentrated in just a few mature nanotech companies. In the first quarter of 2005, almost all of the venture capital invested in the nanotech industry went to four companies: NanoTex ($33 millon), Nanomix ($17 million), Nantero ($17 million), and NanoOpto ($12 million).[17] The NNI needs to focus grants on the companies willing to pursue national security research. In doing so, however, it must walk a fine line between fostering cutting-edge technology advances and establishing a form of corporate welfare. Funding of the private sector should be limited to projects with such prohibitive risk and entry costs that companies would otherwise be unable to pursue them on their own. Interagency Coordination. The DOD recently cited maintaining a consistent vision and stable funding as critical to future nanotechnology research and development.[18] Although federal agencies continue to coordinate through the NNI, each agency retains full control of its own budget decisions and sets its own research priorities. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the "NNI is successfully establishing R&D programs with wider impact than could have been expected from separate agency funding without coordination." Increased coordination within the NNI would produce a centralized list of priorities and leverage resources even more effectively.[19] Reform of Visa
Issuance and Management. Congress needs to promote policies that continue to bring the best and the brightest in nanotechnology to study and work in the United States. Current
visa policies are making it increasingly difficult to recruit students and scientists and to hold scientific conferences in the U nited S tates. The nation's security and competitiveness relies heavily on people's ability to travel to the U nited S tates, but the current visa system is unnecessarily challenging, depriving the U nited S tates of many of the world's best and brightest scientists, students, and entrepreneurs. Long wait times for personal interviews are among the most frequently cited factors that make travel to the United States difficult.
93 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Warming
Need advanced scientists and engineers to solve warming Norris 10--Teryn, "Racing for Clean Tech Jobs: Why America Needs an Energy Education Strategy", Daily Kos, March 18th,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/18/847363/-Racing-for-Clean-Tech-Jobs:-Why-America-Needs-an-Energy-Education-Strategy In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the
U nited S tates faces serious questions about the future of its economy and jobs market. Where will the good jobs of the future come from, how do we prepare the American workforce, and what is our strategy to maintain economic leadership in an increasingly competitive world? A growing consensus suggests that clean tech will be one of our generation's largest growth sectors . The global clean-tech market is expected to surpass $1 trillion in value within the next few years, and a perfect storm of factors - from the inevitability of a carbon-constrained world, to skyrocketing global energy demand, to long-term oil price hikes - will drive global demand for clean-energy technologies. That is why the national debate about global clean-tech competitiveness is so important, sparked by the rapid entry of China and
other nations. My colleagues and I recently contributed to the discussion with "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a large report providing the first comprehensive analysis of competitive positions among the U.S. and key Asian challengers. In order to compete, we found,
"U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean-technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure." But even if the United States adopts a real industrial policy for clean energy, there is little evidence that our workforce is skilled enough to compete . Unfortunately, according to the Department of Energy, "The U.S. ranks behind other major nations in making the transitions required to educate students for emerging energy trades, research efforts and other professions to support the future energy technology mix." A competitive energy workforce requires much more than technicians and building retrofitters. Scientists, engineers, high-tech entrepreneurs, and advanced manufacturers will play a
critical role, just as they have in strategic sectors like infotech, aerospace, and biotech. The federal government has started to address the need for green technician and efficiency retrofit training, such as with the Green Jobs Act, but it has not implemented an education strategy to keep the U.S. at the leading edge of energy science, technology, and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the
majority of our colleges and universities lack degree programs focused on energy, and the U.S. power engineering education system is on the decline. Over the next five years, 45 percent of electric utility engineers will be eligible for retirement, along with 40
percent of key power engineering faculty at U.S. universities, according to a report by IEEE. "Engineering workforce shortages are already occurring," the report concludes. "We
need more electrical engineers to solve industry challenges, and to build the 21st century electric power grid... Meeting these needs requires long-term investment now." Meanwhile, other countries are producing a substantially larger portion of scientists, engineers, and researchers that will benefit their clean-tech industries. Science and engineering make up only about one-third of U.S. bachelor's degrees, compared to 63 percent in Japan, 53 percent in China and 51 percent in Singapore, and the number of Chinese researchers is now on par with the U nited S tates (though some have pointed out that the quality of these graduates and researchers is not always comparable). "Over time," stated a recent report by the National Science Board, "the U nited S tates has fallen from one of the top countries in terms of its ratio of natural science and engineering degrees to the college-age population to near the bottom of the 23 countries for which data are available." The energy workforce deficit and STEM education gap will substantially limit the nation's ability to lead the clean-tech industry and accelerate clean energy development. As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman put it, "If you had to explain America's economic success with one word, that word would be 'education.'" In order to succeed in the clean-tech industry, the U.S. must develop an energy education strategy to develop tens of thousands of advanced energy scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, as well as technicians.
Immigrants key to green tech
94 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Herman and Smith, 10(Richard T. Herman is the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which
serves a global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley. He has appeared on National Public Radio, FOX News, and various affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC. He has also been quoted in such publications as USA Today,InformationWeek, PCWorld, ComputerWorld, CIO, Site Selection and National Lawyers Weekly, Robert L. Smith is a veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohios largest newspaper. Bob grew up in Cleveland, where he lives with his wife, Cleveland Orchestra violinist Chul-In Park, and their two children, Jae, 5, and Sun-Hee, 3. He has written extensively about immigration issues and has interviewed people at all points of the immigrant experience, from undocumented field workers to hugely successful entrepreneurs, Parts of this paper were excerpted from the book Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley & Sons, 2009) by Richard T. Herman & Robert L. Smith. Available wherever books are sold, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy, Immigation Policy Center, http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drive-green-economy)
Raymond Spencer, an Australian-born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the futureand a gusto for investing after founding a high-technology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. I have investments in maybe 10 start-ups, all of which fall within a broad umbrella of a green theme, he said. And its interesting, the vast majority are either led by immigrants or have key technical people who are immigrants. It should come as no surprise that immigrants
will help drive the green revolution. Americas young scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed. Policymakers envision millions of new jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart grid to tap it. But Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of the clean-technologytalent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago. Expanding our own clean-tech industry will require working closely with foreign nations and foreign-born scientists, he said. Immigration restrictions are making collaboration difficult. His labs efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. We cant get researchers over here, Arvizu, the
son of a once-undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his voice tinged with dismay. It makes no sense to me. We need a much more enlightened approach. Dr. Zhao Gang, the Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China, says that America needs that enlightenment fast. The Chinese government continues to impress upon the Obama administration that immigration restrictions are creating major impediments to U.S.-China collaboration on clean energy development, he said during a recent speech in Cleveland. So whats the problem? Some of it can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu places greater weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fast-paced world of green-tech development. We are innovating so fast
here, what we do today is often outdated tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that requires global teamwork, he said. We need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and retention of scarce, high-end talent needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy technology and other emerging technologies. One idea we floated by Arvizu was a new immigrant Energy Scientist Visa, providing fast-track green cards for Ph.D.s with the most promising energy research, as reviewed by a panel of top U.S. scientists. Arvizu enthusiastically responded, Wow, thats a brilliant idea. As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill suggests, theres really no shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to jumpstart the economy. The challenge is getting the American people to understand that highskill immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is required now. Suffering an Antiquated System While unlimited H1-B visas are available to foreign workers at U.S. government and university research labs, the antiquated green-card system creates a disincentive for immigrant researchers who seek a more permanent stay and status in the U.S. Anyone coming to America from a foreign land experiences the U.S. immigration system. They seldom forget the experience. This vast bureaucracy, with tentacles reaching into myriad federal agencies, wields
enormous power over the lives of people trying to follow its directives. Federal immigration authorities decide if a persecuted family can escape Congo, if a prospective college student from Germany will start the school year on time in Cleveland, or if a Honduran family separated for years will be reunited in Miami. U.S. immigration law dictates who can enter America and how long they can stay. Congress can enact new immigration policies as it deems fitand it did so in 1986 and in 1990. But the foundation of the system remains the Federal Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1965 and 1952. The 1965 act diversified America by opening immigration to new parts of the world, but it also levied restrictions that soon become dated and counterproductive. In a manufacturing era, the act made family reunification an overarching goal, while paying relatively little attention to the migration of highly skilled workers. In fact, it imposed rigid nationality quotas on skilled immigrants. The result, critics say, is a dinosaur of a system ill-equipped to deal with the demands of a fast-changing, global economy. [CONTINUED] Our immigration laws discriminate pretty heavily against highly talented scientists and engineers who want to come to this country and be part of our technological establishment, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told a Congressional panel in May 2009. Of particular concern to employers and economists are two sets of quotas: one that limits the number of visas available to skilled workers, and another that limits the visas available to a nationality. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
95 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Service (USCIS) issues about 1 million green cards per year. Also known as immigrant visas, green cards bestow permanent residency, or the right to live and work permanently in America. A green card puts one on the path to citizenship. In a typical year, the vast majority of green cards go to people sponsored by a family member already here. There is no limit to the numbers of green cards that can be issued to the spouses, parents, and unmarried children of naturalized U.S. citizens. America accepts far fewer people whose main reason for coming is to practice a profession, to pursue science, or to start a companyeven if that person possesses extraordinary ability. The government is restricted by law to issuing 140,000 employment or skill-based green cards each year to applicants and their immediate family members. Thats about 15 perc ent of the immigrant visa pool. A chunk of green cards are set aside for religious workers and wealthy investors, so the United States actually offers 120,000 employment-based green cards each year. Within the employment visa categories, known as EB visas, are several subcategories that acknowledge skill levels. For example, 40,000 visas are designated for persons of extraordinary abilityoutstanding professors, researchers, and multinational executives. Another 40,000 visas are designated for professionals with advanced academic degrees whose work will serve U.S. national interests. And another 10,000 visas are available for wealthy people who commit to investing in a U.S. enterprise and creating jobs. So, out of 1 million green cards issued in an average year, 90,000, or about 9 percent, are reserved for persons with advanced degrees, exceptional skills, or capital to create jobs. Put another way, about 9 percent of immigrant visas are reserved for high-skill immigrantsthe people driving the New Economy. Its a scant amount in the context of a U.S. labor force of 154 million people. Should those exceptional immigrants hail from a nation whose workers are in high demandfor example, India and Chinathey face delays imposed by a nationality quota system. The 1965 immigration law sets per-country limits on employment visas. People from any one nation cannot use more than 7 percent of the visas available that year. This means that workers from large sending countries are forced to wait, sometimes more than 8 years, because their visa allotment has been oversubscribed by their fellow citizens. The 7 percent quota applies equally to every nation on Earth, regardless of its size or the potential number of immigrants it sends to America. For example, Malawi, which has a population of 10.5 million people, is allocated the same amount of employment visas as India, which has a population of over 1 billion. In any given year, only 5,600 green cards are reserved for Indians with advanced academic degrees or extraordinary ability, the same number available to nationals of Malawi. Congress has sought to circumvent the quotas and respond to industry demandsespecially in high technologywith guest worker visas like the H1-B, a source of some controversy. The H-1B is a temporary visa for a professional offered a job by a U.S. company that agrees to pay the prevailing market wage. Only 65,000 regular H-1B visas are available each year, a quota set in the early 1990s and temporarily increased to 195,000 from 2001 to 2003. Many employers say the cap is set too low to meet their needs, especially as they seek to staff engineering and software positions. Some lawmakers would like to help them with a higher quota. These skilled immigrants often come to America as students, then go to work in growing industries. A 2008 study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that for each worker hired on an H-1B visa, at least five new jobs were created. But many labor groups argue that the cap is already set too high. Only a bachelors degree is required to qualify for this visa, and critics charge the H-1B visas crowd skilled Americans out of the workplace, suppress wages, and make it easier for employers to outsource jobs to low-cost countries like India. Even immigrant advocates criticize the H-1B as a second-class visa that produces an anxious life. Tied to their employers, the guest workers cannot switch jobs unless their new employer is willing to sponsor their visa, and their spouses are not allowed to work. The three-year visa can be renewed once. But after six years, the visa holder must go home unless he or she is able to get a green-card sponsor. The national-origin quotas, coupled with a limit of 90,000 immigrant visas
reserved for highly skilled professionals or investors, helps to explain why so many talented immigrantsmany of them H-1B visa holderswait in vain for permission to live and work in America. Many are now leaving the U.S., or simply not coming to study or work on an H1B. After
revealing the high-skill visa backlog in 2007, Vivek Wadhwa and his researchers at Duke University began to examine the impact. With the support of the Kauffman Foundation, they surveyed about 1,200 Chinese and Indian professionals who had studied or worked in America and returned home. The returnees were an impressive bunch, overwhelmingly young, smart, and ambitious, as described in the March 2009 report, Americas Loss is the Worlds Gain. Nearly 90 percent held masters or doctorate degrees. Many said they expected to start their own companies. Homesickness was common among the immigrants who went back, and many expressed frustration with the U.S. immigration system. But even more said the home country suddenly offered good jobs and bright career prospects. That is the new reality that demands a response, Wadhwa argues. Foreign-born mathematicians, engineers, and chemists can now find world-class companies in Bangalore, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Seoul, and Singapore. With high-tech opportunities blossoming elsewhere, and anti-immigrant attitudes hardening in America, Wadhwa said his adopted homeland faces a crisis. The United States is no longer the only place where talented people can put their skills to work, he writes. It can no longer expect them to endure the indignities and inefficie ncies of an indifferent immigration system, and it must now actively compete to attract these people with good jobs, security and other amenities. The competition is heating up. In an earlier study, Wadhwa pointed out that most high-skilled immigrants obtained their primary education before coming to America, meaning that the United States inherited the benefits of schooling that was paid for elsewhere. Some countries are looking to recoup that investment and attract their diasporas back home. Alberta, Canada, sensing an opportunity to snatch talent from America, is sending recruiting teams to U.S. cities to lure disgruntled foreign professional workers on temporary H-1B visas. The province is offering expedited permanent-residency cards and quicker pathways to entrepreneurship. Many researchers believe these immigrant-attraction strategies will show results. The reality of the global economy is that employers and their capital will follow the talentwherever that talent is permitted to work and flourish, Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, wrote in 2007. While members of Congress often talk about protecting American jobs, those who persist in pursuing restriction on hiring skilled foreign nationals unfortunately are inhibiting creation and innovation in the United States. In 2007, Microsoft opened up a research and development facility in Vancouver, Canada, just over the border from its Seattle headquarters. Microsoft defended its decision by citing U.S. immigration restrictions on high-skilled talent. Perhaps no country understands better the role of foreign talent in creating jobs for its people than Singapore. In July 2008, Singapores Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Lo ong, declared that Singapore must be open to foreign talent to achieve a critical mass for innovation and entrepreneurship. Even with the global recession in full swing, Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng announced that restricting the entry of high-skill immigrants would be short sighted and could ultimately lead to more job losses for Singaporeans. America
96 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
loses more than innovation if newly minted graduates go elsewhere; it loses tax dollars. A 2009 report by the respected Technology Policy Institute found that immigration restrictions cost billions in lost opportunity, taxes, and wages. The institute concluded that legislation considered by Congress to loosen green-card and H-1B visa restrictions could reduce the federal deficit on the order of $100 billion across 10 years. In short, fantastic opportunities are being lost as high-skill immigrants are steered elsewhere. We need to polish our welcome. For starters, Wadhwa argues, the United States could reduce the huge backlog of visa requests simply by making more visas available to skilled immigrants and by accelerating the processing times. His is one voice in a growing chorus that hopes to wrest the spotlight from illegal immigration and illuminate the larger wave, its potential, and the consequences of inaction. But the academic studies, while critically important, do not seem to cut through the noise and connect with the American people. The American people are not demanding high-skill immigration reform. They dont see it as a job-creation opportunity. The word immigrant almost automatically summons an angry response that immigrants take jobs. Something else is needed. Time for a New Narrative Stories connect us to each other. Drawing from the same well of human aspiration, triumph and failure, our personal stories create an emotional bond that transforms strangers into familiar faces. As America once again struggles with the question of whether and how to welcome the immigrant stranger, the telling of new immigrant stories is needed to help heal the chasm between us and them, and between our personal immigrant past and our nations immigrant present and future. During this Great Recession, with unemployment near 10%, the immigration narrative also needs to offer hope for Americans hope that tomorrow will be better. Hope today comes in the form of good old American jobs. We have been told that maybe 4 million blue and whitecollar jobs may be created by advances in alternative energy technology, and that wind, solar, thermal, and other sources of energy will move us closer to energy independence, greater national security and a healthier planet. But so far, we havent been that interested in asking the question, who will create and commercialize this new green technology? Much like the
role that immigrants played, in partnership with American-born colleagues, in the information technology revolution and the elevation of Silicon Valley to almost mythical status, immigrants are now emerging as key drivers of Americas quest for world-class clean energy technology. A glance at recent research on the contributions of immigrants supports the expectation that immigrants are helping to lead the green economy and other emerging industries: Immigrants are nearly twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business. Immigrants are filing patents at twice the rate of the American-born. Immigrants founded more than half of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley. Immigrants are much more likely to earn an advanced degree than the native-born. (Continued. (Feel Free to ask for the deleted text) Throughout Michigan and the Midwest, civic and union
leaders cheered the made-in-America strategy. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told the national media that a company founded by immigrants was moving the country in the right direction. We need a twenty-first century manufacturing strategy in this country, she said. Companies like A1234 are not only creating qua lity, good-paying jobs in Michigan, but are insuring that we do not move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology. John Dingell, a member of Congress from Michigan, called the A123-Chrysler partnership momentous on two levels. The future of this country is dependent upon addressing two vital challenges stopping the spread of global warming, and creating the next generation of manufacturing jobs here in the United States, he said. This project gets us closer to achieving bot h of those goals.
97 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Climate Leadership

Immigration is key to climate leadership Madrid 10 (www.americanprogress.org AP Photo/Seth Perlman From a Green Farce to a Green Future Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment Jorge Madrid October 2010 From a Green Farce to a Green Future Refuting False Claims About Immigrants and the Environment Jorge Madrid October 2010 Jorge Madrid is a Research Associate with the energy team at the Center for American Progress. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and public administration from the University of Southern California and is a former graduate fellow with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus institute. We need leadership and solutions, not scapegoats To reiterate: The United States will only reach meaningful cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and curb the effects of climate change through global partnerships. The United States, as the worlds highest emitter of GHGs, must lead by example and not be distracted by those who want to create a political wedge between the environmental community and advocates of sensible comprehensive immigration reform. Caving into such tactics hinders our path to a clean and green future and diminishes our standing as a global leader. The facts lost in anti-immigrant green farce arguments are critical, and they need
to be understood and addressed. For instance: Thirty-eight percent of U.S. GHG emissions come from buildings. Commercial and industrial buildings account for as much as 50 percent of U.S. energy use and residential buildings account for another 20 percent. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. GHG emissions come from transportation. Seventeen percent of global GHG emissions are caused by deforestation. Fi fty-seven percent of global GHG emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels. The United States meets 85 percent of its energy needs by burning fossil fuels. How much we consume is definitely a factor in the above figures. And that number is influenced by population and per capita consumption. But more important, these
figures represent a problem in how we consumeand that relates to our production, consumption, and distribution systems that are polluting and unsustainable. The United States needs to lead and not scapegoat to solve its own sustainability challenges as well serve as an example for the rest of the developing world. Draconian anti-immigrant policies are not a magic bullet that will set us on the
right path. In short, we must focus on solutions instead of tinkering at the margins with misguided and ill-informed anti-immigrant scapegoating. More people do not necessarily equal more stress on the planet, and stopping the flow of immigrants to this country will not solve our environmental challenges. Blaming
immigrants for climate change is a sham. In fact, immigrants actually live greener than most Americans and they can play a critical role in solving our environmental challenges. Hate groups and other immigration restrictionists who disguise themselves as environmentalistswho argue for zero net
migration, sealing off our borders, and enforcement-only initiativesmust be silenced with the facts to prevent misguided policies and to promote a more reasonable discussion on how to solve our problems. As the nation moves toward comprehensive reform of the federal immigration system immigrants
should be considered allies in the fight against climate change and the march toward green policy. In their roles as entrepreneurs and greencollar workers they are assets in our efforts to revive the economy and implement climate solutions. This country must examine its own unsustainable systems of
energy generation and consumption rather than blame immigrants. And it needs to make tough decisions on how to fix these systems. Our dialogue about sustainability and climate change should focus on real problems and solutions, not fallacies. Freeing the national debate from distractions and political wedges can help the United States lead the global charge toward a cleaner and greener future.
98 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Space
Any space ventures are impossible without immigratnts Pollack, 5 (Susan W., Ms. Pollack graduated as a member of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces class of 2005. Some of her
assignments prior to attending ICAF include contracts specialist at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command and deputy director of the acquisition support cadre at the Missile Defense Agency. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in international rela tions from Saint Josephs University and has completed the Advanced Program Management Course at the Defense Systems Management College., THE FUTURE OF OUR NATIONS SPACE INDUSTRY WORKFORCE, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449454&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
The harsh fact is that the US need for the highest quality human capital in science, mathematics, and engineering is not being met . . . .In a knowledge-based future, only an America that remains at the cutting edge of science and technology will sustain its current world leadership.82 Introduction: There is a crisis looming in Americas science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce base that has serious implications for the future of Americas space industry, and our nations economic and national security. Today, trends indicate other nations are on the verge of passing the US in scientific excellence and technological innovation.83 This comes at a time when the US is more dependent on its military, civil, and commercial-supporting space assets than any other nation. To maintain American preeminence in space, our nation must reinvigorate and inspire a new generation of STEM talent, as
well as increase investments in research and development (R&D) and infrastructures. Troubling Trends of STEM Education and the R&D Connection: The Council on Competitiveness found that innovation is the single most important factor in determining Americas success through the 21st century.84 While the report recommends increased funding in R&D, the US government has reduced funding in national R&D over the past ten years, including cuts in the Presidents FY 2006 R&D budget. Studies link a strong correlation between reduced R&D funding to the decline in the number of graduates in the STEM subjects.85 Over the past decade, our
nation has lost more than 600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs which have also adversely impacted the number of students earning degrees in STEM. Meanwhile, nearly 30 percent of the aerospace workforce will be eligible to retire in 2008. 86 The current US educational system will not provide enough students with the needed STEM skills to fill the critical positions being vacated by the retiring baby-boomers.87 Concurrently, other nations are building up their science and technology (S&T) infrastructures and capabilities. A
disturbing trend is the low performance of American students in the math and science subjects. Math and science achievement scores of US students fall below international averages.88 The results of a recent international survey, conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment in the spring of 2003, indicate the learning gap between the US and its competitors in Europe and Asia is widening in basic math and science skills at the eighth through twelfth grade levels. This is alarming since
technology and innovation in the space
industry depends on high tech skills in the STEM subjects, yet this is precisely where the best US students are not
excelling. Space science education gets taught within the Earth science curriculum in the grades K-9.
99 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Navy
Need workers to save the navy Council on Competitiveness 9. * Mobilizing a World Class Energy Workforce December -http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/CoC_-_Pillar_6_Handout_-_Mobilizing_a_WorldClass_Energy_Workforce,_Dec09.pdf]
America currently lacks an energy workforce of sufficient size and capabilities to meet the needs of a
sustainable, secure energy system.1 With increasing demand come abundant job opportunities in both traditional and emerging energy industries. Unfortunately, U.S. workers are neither aware nor sufficiently prepared to take them. Moreover, with an aging population and the
is an inadequate pipeline of replacement workers, technicians and managers to succeed them. The United States stands to lose half of its electric power industry workforce within the next five to ten years due to retirement. Americas oil and gas workforce averages 50 years in age; half are likely to retire soon. Workers in these conventional energy sector jobs, from power plant operators to transmission line and pipeline workers, are retiring at a much faster rate than they are being replaced. The introduction of any new energy technologies will not compensate for this workforce shortage. For example, in the nuclear industry, the fact that there has been no new construction of a nuclear facility in the United States in over 30 years has led to the atrophy of skills, the loss of technicians, the dearth of American students in nuclear engineering and a national security risk for the primarily nuclear-powered U.S. Navy. 2 The
retirement of
the baby boomers well under way, there
development, installation and maintenance of new technologies require skills at all levels of educational training. Many of these jobs, such as building new power plants, cannot be exported and will remain in the United States. So-called green collar jobs could fill this gap over time and provide for significant domestic employment growth, but capitalizing on this opportunity will require government being proactive in developing programs to provide the necessary skills. Government should provide a 21st century education to match the 21st century job opportunities, requirements and needs. There is growing global competition for scientific and engineering talent today, and the U.S. pipeline of students is slowing.3 The private sector, where the overwhelming majority of careers will be, knows best the current opportunities that are not being met. Executives
cite the lack of scientific, engineering and skilled talent as among the most serious challenges facing their businesses today.4 They know what skills will be required and can
assist in developing the workforce of the future by working closely with educational institutions as well as within their own organizations.
100 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns Energy
Skilled worker shortages prevent energy expansion Lavelle 8 Marianne Lavelle, energy editor for National Geographic Digital Media, has spent more than
two decades covering environment, business, and energy. A Worker Shortage in the Nuclear Industry, March 13, http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/03/13/a-worker-shortage-in-thenuclear-industry The reason for the hurry: Big energy construction will be booming in the next decade, concentrated in the Southnot only nuclear generators but coal plants, liquefied natural gas terminals, oil refineries, and electricity transmission lines. All projects need skilled craft workers, and they are in drastically short supply . The utility Southern Co. estimates that existing energy facilities already are short 20,000 workers in the Southeast. That shortfall will balloon to 40,000
by 2011 because of the new construction. Pay is inching up and hours are increasing for workers who are
the nuclear industry views itself as especially vulnerable to the skilled-labor shortage. It hasn't had to recruit for decades. Not only were no nuke plants getting built, but workers in the 104 atomic facilities already in operation tended to stay in their well-paid jobs for years. But in the next five years, just as the industry hopes to launch a renaissance, up to 19,600 nuclear workers35 percent of the workforcewill reach retirement age. "The shortage of skilled labor and the rising average age of workers in the electric industry are a growing concern," likely to push up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, said Standard & Poor's
certified craftsmen. Fluor says skilled workers at the Oak Grove coal project are putting in 60-hour weeks instead of the well-into-overtime 50-hour weeks that had been planned. Looking ahead, Rating Services in a recent report.
Lack of workforce turns the aff only reform solves. Council on Competitiveness 9. * Mobilizing a World Class Energy Workforce December -http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/CoC_-_Pillar_6_Handout_-_Mobilizing_a_WorldClass_Energy_Workforce,_Dec09.pdf]
America currently lacks an energy workforce of sufficient size and capabilities to meet the needs of a
sustainable, secure energy system.1 With increasing demand come abundant job opportunities in both traditional and emerging energy industries. Unfortunately, U.S. workers are neither aware nor sufficiently prepared to take them. Moreover, with an aging population and the the baby boomers well under way, there is an inadequate pipeline of replacement workers, technicians and managers to succeed them. The United States stands to lose half of its electric power industry workforce within the next five to ten years due to retirement. Americas oil and gas workforce averages 50 years in age; half are likely to retire soon. Workers in these conventional energy sector jobs, from power plant operators to transmission line and pipeline workers, are retiring at a much faster rate than they are being replaced. The introduction of any new energy technologies will not compensate for this workforce shortage. For example, in the nuclear industry, the fact that there has been no new construction of a nuclear facility in the United States in over 30 years has led to the atrophy of skills, the loss of technicians, the dearth of American students in nuclear engineering and a national security risk for the primarily nuclear-powered U.S. Navy. 2 The
retirement of
development, installation and maintenance of new technologies require skills at all levels of educational training. Many of these jobs, such as building new power plants, cannot be exported and will remain in the United States. So-called green collar jobs could fill this gap over time and provide for significant domestic employment growth, but capitalizing on this opportunity will require government being proactive in developing programs to provide the necessary skills. Government should provide a 21st century education to match the 21st century job opportunities, requirements and needs. There is growing global competition for scientific and engineering talent today, and the U.S. pipeline of students is slowing.3 The private sector, where the overwhelming majority of careers will be, knows best the current opportunities that are not being met. Executives
cite the lack of scientific, engineering and skilled talent as among the most serious challenges facing their businesses today.4 They know what skills will be required and can
assist in developing the workforce of the future by working closely with educational institutions as well as within their own organizations.
101 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Turns China Cooperation

Immigration reform is key china cooperation that turns solvency Herman and Smith 10 (Richard T. Herman is the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, law firm in Cleveland, Ohio, also the cofounder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley. He has appeared on National Public Radio, FOX News, and various affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC. He has also been quoted in such publications as USA Today,InformationWeek, PCWorld, ComputerWorld, CIO, Site Selection and National Lawyers Weekly, Robert L. Smith is a veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohios largest newspaper. Bob He has written extensively about immigration issues and has interviewed people at all points of the immigrant experience, from undocumented field workers to hugely successful entrepreneurs, Parts of this paper were excerpted from the book Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley & Sons, 2009) by Richard T. Herman & Robert L. Smith. Available wherever books are sold, Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy, Immigation Policy Center) Raymond Spencer, an Australian-born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the futureand a gusto for investing after founding a high-technology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. I have investments in maybe 10 start-ups, all of which fall within a broad umbrella of a green theme, he said. And its interesting, the vast majority are either led by immigrants or have key technical
immigrants will help drive the green revolution. Americas young scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women who entered the fields of
people who are immigrants. It should come as no surprise that science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the connection between immigration and the development and
Policymakers envision millions of new jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart grid to tap it. But Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of the cleantechnology talent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago. Expanding our own clean-tech industry will require working closely with foreign nations and foreign-born scientists, he said. Immigration restrictions are making collaboration difficult. His labs efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. We cant get researchers over here, Arvizu, the son of a once-undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his
commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed. voice tinged with dismay. It makes no sense to me. We need a much more enlightened approach. Dr. Zhao Gang, the Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of the Ministry of Science and Technology in China, says that
The Chinese government continues to impress upon the Obama administration that immigration restrictions are creating major impediments to U.S.-China collaboration on clean energy development, he said during a recent speech in Cleveland. So whats the problem? Some of it
America needs that enlightenment fast. can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu places greater weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fast-paced world of green-tech development. We are innovating so fast here, what we do today is often outdated tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that requires global teamwork, he said.
We need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and retention of scarce, high-end talent needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy technology and other
emerging technologies. One idea we floated by Arvizu was a new immigrant Energy Scientist Visa, providing fast-track green cards for Ph.D.s with the most promising energy research, as reviewed by a panel of top U.S. scientists. Arvizu enthusiastically responded, Wow, thats a brilliant idea. As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill suggests, theres really no shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to jumpstart the economy. The challenge is getting the American people to understand that high-skill immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is required now.
102 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Agriculture Impact Extensions
103 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Immigration Reform Key to Food Security

Immigration reform is key to food security ACIR 7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration enforcement legislation known as the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or SAVE Act (H.R.4088 and S.2368). While these bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they
fail to take a comprehensive approach to solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional approach to the nations immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery, greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have resulted in actual crop loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to scale back production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled. Continued labor shortages could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of affected industries. This
problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker program does not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is foreign born, and a significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills imposition of mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued
failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because laborintensive agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced to move, most of the upstream and
downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders and a rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides a fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other bills that would impose employmentbased immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would provide for a stable and legal farm labor force.
104 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Food Security Impact

Food insecurity sparks World War 3 Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281,
No. 1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling.
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Prevents global starvation Stulp, 09 Agriculture Commissioner in Colorado (John, Americas economy needs farmers, Journal-Advocate, 3/20/2009, http://www.journaladvocate.com/news/2009/mar/20/americas-economy-needs-farmers/, JMP) This week we commemorate American agriculture and the benefits it brings to our society, our economy and our environment. But most of all, we celebrate the productivity of our nations farmers and ranchers. Gov. Ritter has declared today, March 20, as Agriculture Day in Colorado. While farmers and ranchers constitute less than 2 percent of our population, they feed our entire country and a good number of consumers overseas. The
productivity of our agricultural industry is astounding, and scientists continue to explore new frontiers of crop and livestock technology, which will bring even greater productivity to feed a growing world population. Agricultural productivity is more important in todays economy than ever. Americans spend only about 9 percent of their income on food. That compares nicely to 11 percent in the U.K. and 17 percent in Japan. Food is a bargain in America, freeing more of a consumers paycheck to pay for other necessities , and maybe even a
splurge once in a while. A farmer receives only a small portion of every food dollar. For instance, a pound of boneless ham might sell for around $4.50, and the farmers share of that is less than 70 cents. A bag of potato chips costs about $3, but the farmer gets only six cents of it. A $2.50 loaf of bread contains only eight
U nited S tates agriculture will have to become even more productive as the worlds population increases. Demographers expect the worlds population to grow to nearly 10 billion people by the year 2050. That population will need ten billion tons of food
cents worth of wheatabout the same value as the plastic wrap it comes in.
to survive twice as much agricultural production as farmers currently provide. Where will all that food come
from? Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who is credited with s aving a billion lives by creating the Green Revolution through agricultural research, believes farmers could produce that much food today. Borlaug believes that research in agricultural technology is the key to keeping food production in line with population growth. We are fortunate as Americans to have farmers and ranchers that work their fields and care for their livestock on a daily basis to allow us consumers to have access to the safest, most economical, and the most dependable source of food, fiber and fuels in the world. Even
in difficult economic times, Americas agricultural producers continue to undergird the economy with products that touch every American every day.
105 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biotech Impact Extensions
106 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Visas Key to Biotech Workers

Lack of visas will drive away STEM workers and undermine US dominance in biotechnology
McQuaid, et al., 2010, American Behavioral Scientist, Expanding Entrepreneurship: Female and Foreign-Born Founders of New England Biotechnology Firms, March, [University of Massachusetts, Boston lecturer; Jim], p. 1059
Our research implies that highly educated immigrants should be welcomed as long term and probably permanent residents of the United States. The results presented in this article indicate that immigrants not only do important work as employees of existing research organizations but also start new businesses that employ highly skilled workers in the United States. We know that foreign-born PhDs contribute disproportionately to the development of scientific knowledge (Levin & Stephan, 1999). Our research shows that they also contribute heavily to the development of companies that create the most innovative life science therapies. These biotech companies we have studied create thousands of good jobs for U.S. citizens and immigrants alike. If these highly skilled immigrant entrepreneurs and their families and supporting communities are kept out of the United States by stricter immigration policies, we may see a decline in the U.S. dominance in the biotech industry. Some research suggests that in recent years, Canada has admitted the same number of highly educated immigrants as the United States has, even though Canada has only about 11% of the total U.S. population (National Foundation for American Policy, 2008).
107 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biotech Key to GM Crops

US biotech is key to the expansion of GM crops
Juma, 2011, Des Moines Register, February 19, Technological Intolerance Threatens Global Food Security, [Harvard professor of international development; Calestous], p.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20753/technological_intolerance_t hreatens_global_food_security.html
Modern biotechnology is an important force in global agriculture. But it continues to be challenged by those wanting to limit its spread under the pretext of preserving the purity of organic farming. This is being done despite worrying evidence of rising food prices and the associated political unrest. In a historic decision, the U.S. secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, recently ruled that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is as safe as traditionally bred alfalfa. USDA has since then allowed farmers to resume cultivation of GM sugar beets. The government is also reviewing other cases that include GM trees and salmon. The alfalfa decision reverses his earlier proposal to ban the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa within five miles of any organic seed breeder. Technology is widely used. Since their introduction in 1995, U.S. farmers have made GM crops the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in history. GM varieties are grown on more than 150 million acres in this country alone and account for nearly all U.S. corn, soybeans and cotton. But organic farmers, whose fields make up just one-half of 1 percent of U.S. cropland, have long complained that GM crops jeopardize their own production through crosspollination. Such cross-pollination could destroy their biotech-free status. It is recognized that seed breeders should be responsible for protecting the genetic composition of seed. For example, breeders must protect sweet corn from cross-pollination by the unpalatable field corn varieties fed to livestock. Similarly, they must prevent canola from being cross-pollinated by rapeseed, which contains a potent natural toxin. But there are a number of simple and flexible agronomic techniques, such as isolation distances and buffer zones, which breeders can use to preserve the identity of their seeds. For alfalfa, the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies requires buffer zones of just 165 feet to maintain the genetic integrity of certified seed and 900 feet for so-called foundation seed. That's sufficient to prevent most cross-pollination. Conventional farmers further volunteered to extend buffer zones up to one or two miles from non-biotech seed breeders. The organic industry rejected that offer. Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, said "there can be no such thing as coexistence" with biotechnology. Such zero-tolerance runs counter to the organic industry's own rules concerning unwanted inputs, which are based on process not outcomes. As long as organic growers do not intentionally plant biotech seeds or apply synthetic pesticides, the unintentional cross-pollination by GM plants or the drift of a neighbor's pesticide onto their fields does not cause the crops to lose their organic certification. World is following lead of U.S. The USDA decision has come at a time when much of the world is warming to biotech. Farming giants like China, Brazil and India have embraced biotech crops. And even the European Commission (EC) is acknowledging that existing GM crops do not carry any unique risks. In a recent study, the EC has found that GM crops are at least as safe for consumers and the environment as conventionally bred plant varieties, and sometimes safer. It also concluded that GM crops could help developing countries meet their food needs while addressing the challenges of climate change in a sustainable way. African countries such as South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt have adopted GM crops. Other countries such as Kenya and Tanzania are preparing to start field trials. The United States has been a world leader in biotech because it uses a science-driven regulatory system. The rest of the world needs this demonstrated leadership now more than ever. Caving in to the forces of technological intolerance would erode U.S. leadership in agricultural innovation and undermine global food security. 108 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
109 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
GM Crops Key to Biodiversity

GM crop expansion saves biodiversity
Trewavas, 2000, GM is the Best Option We Have? AgBioWorld, June 5, [Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology; Anthony], p. http://www.agbioworld.org/biotechinfo/articles/biotech-art/best_option.html
Our current numbers of some six billion have already placed dangerous burdens on the ecosystems of spaceship earth and threaten our bio-diversity on which we are all interdependent. Global warming may indeed be global warning. So ploughing up wilderness to feed these extra people is no option. We can also eliminate organic farming as a meaningful solution. Organic farmers rely ultimately and only on soil nitrogen fixation to provide the essential nitrate and ammonia for crop growth and yield. Rainwater provides the other minerals. Since the maximum yields of fixed nitrogen have been measured numerous times we can estimate that by taking another 750 million ha of wilderness under the plough we could feed just three billion. When Greenpeace tell us to 'go organic' I ask myself which three billion will live and which three billion will die; perhaps they can enlighten us when they have finished tangling with the courts. Clever plant breeding in the early 60's produced rice and wheat plants with well over double their previous yield; such progress enabled a parallel doubling of mankind, without massive starvation. But this option is now exhausted. Ignoring the problem, leaving billions to starve in misery, the worst of all tortures according to Amnesty International, is not an option either. "Every man's death diminishes me because I am part of mankind; ask not for whom the bell tolls..." is a philosophy I know many here will share with John Donne. So where one grain grew before we now again have to ensure that two will grow in the future. Currently GM is our best option to achieve this difficult task.
110 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biodiversity Impact
The impact is linear---triggers a domino effect---extinction Diner, 1994, Military Law Review, [US Army Major; David], Winter, Lexis
4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is better than simplicity. As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist stress... [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
111 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Hegemony Impact Extensions
112 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Immigration Key to Hegemony

Key to hegemony outweighs the Aff on timeframe Kliman 10 visiting fellow at the Center for a New American Security *Daniel, Immigration and
American Power, May 28, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/28/opinion/main6525992.shtml]
President Obamas National Security Strategy released on Thursday has launched the opening salvo in a battle to recast what immigration means to the United States. The new strategy observes that American prosperity and
leadership depends on attracting the premier human capital for our workforce. That is, immigration equals national power . This recasting comes at a critical moment. The United States can no longer take for granted its capacity to attract and retain foreign talent. Successfully competing for the worlds best and brightest requires urgent immigration reform . American power and immigration are closely interlinked. The most dynamic sectors of the U.S. economy are heavily dependent on foreign talent. Immigrants have
founded 25percent of public, venture-backed U.S. companies, including eBay, Yahoo, and Google. Between 1995 and 2005, foreigners from just two countries - China and India - accounted for almost 30 percent of all Silicon Valley startups. American leadership in science and technology also rests on the inflow of talent from abroad. As fewer and fewer U.S. citizens have chosen careers in science, foreigners have stepped in to fill the gap. One-fourth of Americas science and engineering workforce is foreign-born. In 2007, foreigners accounted for almost 50 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States. Immigration is not inevitably destined to remain a wellspring of American power. Historically, greater economic opportunity, superior universities, a relatively open immigration system, and a tolerant society rendered the United States an irresistible magnet for immigrants. But the world is rapidly changing, and the most talented immigrants may no longer stay. Home to the fastest growing major economies, Asia has become a region of opportunity for returnees who are highly educated or have overseas work experience. Asian governments have begun to actively court their expatriates. China, for example, uses world-class facilities, plentiful grant money, and prestigious titles to woo researchers living abroad. Whether Americas ability to cream off the best and brightest has already declined remains uncertain. Prior to the financial crisis, the stay rates for foreigners receiving PhDs in science and engineering increased slightly. But a 2008 survey of foreign students enrolled in U.S. higher education found that 55 percent of Indian respondents and 40 percent of Chinese respondents wanted to return home within five years. If this snapshot is predictive, then stay rates for these groups are set to substantially decline. The United States cannot rest on its laurels. Sustaining American power will require stepping up efforts to attract and retain foreign talent. A number of worthy proposals already exist. One would be to increase the number of H-1B visas for foreigners with critical skills. Another would be the creation of a new visa for immigrant entrepreneurs, as outlined in a Senate bill recently introduced by John Kerry and Richard Lugar. The bill would establish a visa for immigrants who raise startup funds from U.S. investors and grant them legal residence if the venture generates at least five jobs. A third would focus on foreigners in science and engineering graduate programs. Any number of measures could make the United States a more attractive long-term home for them. Hand out Green Cards with their diplomas. Automatically grant them work visas upon graduation. Or introduce a flexible visa allowing them to move between the United States and their home country for a ten-year period with an ultimate option of settling in the United States and expedited citizenship. A fourth would recognize that immigrants often return home to be closer to family. The United States could facilitate visas for family members of foreigners who work in science and technologyrelated industries. The overarching objective of President Obamas National Security Strategy is to renew
American power . Promoting immigration is the most immediate way to do so . Other wellsprings of American power, such as infrastructure and education, can only be moved in a positive direction over the long term . Major projects to upgrade Americas infrastructure will take years , while the returns from improving education will require a generation to realize. Although these goals should be pursued as well, renewing American power starts with welcoming foreign talent to Americas
shore.
Immigration reform necessary to sustain the economy and hegemony Javier Palomarez, Forbes, 3/6/13, The Pent Up Entrepreneurship That Immigration Reform Would
Unleash, www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/06/the-pent-up-entrepreneurship-that-immigrationreform-would-unleash/print/
The main difference between now and 2007 is that today
the role of immigrants and their many contributions to the 113 9-Feb-14
American economy have been central in the countrys national conversation on the issue. Never before have Latinos been so
Planet Debate
central to the election of a U.S. President as in 2012. New
{File Name}
evidence about the economic importance of immigration reform, coupled with the new political realities presented by the election, have given reform a higher likelihood of passing. As the President & CEO of the countrys largest Hispanic business association, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC),
which advocates for the interests of over 3 million Hispanic owned businesses, I have noticed that nearly every meeting I hold with corporate leaders now involves a discussion of how and when immigration reform will pass. The USHCC has long seen comprehensive immigration
reform as an economic imperative, and now the wider business community seems to be sharing our approach. It is no longer a question of whether it will pass. Out of countless conversations with business leaders in virtually every sector and every state, a consensus has emerged: our broken and outdated immigration system hinders our economys growth and puts Americas global leadership in jeopardy . Innovation drives the American economy, and without good ideas and skilled workers, our country wont be able to transform industries or to lead world markets as effectively as it has done for decades. Consider some figures: Immigrant-owned firms
generate an estimated $775 billion in annual revenue, $125 billion in payroll and about $100 billion in income. A study conducted by the New American Economy found that over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or children of immigrants. Leading
brands, like Google, Kohls, eBay, Pfizer, and AT&T, were founded by immigrants. Researchers at the Kauffman Foundation released a study late last year showing that from 2006 to 2012, one in four engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder in Silicon Valley it was almost half of new companies. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S. Imagine what small business growth in the U.S. would look like if they were provided legal status, if they had an opportunity for citizenship. Without fear of deportation or prosecution, imagine the pent up entrepreneurship that could be unleashed. After all, these are people who are clearly entrepreneurial in spirit to have come here and risk all in the first place. Immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as native-born Americans, and statistics show that most job growth comes from small businesses. While
immigrants are both critically-important consumers and producers, they boost the economic well-being of native-born Americans as well. Scholars at the Brookings Institution recently described the relationship of these two groups of workers as complementary. This is because lower-skilled immigrants largely take farming and other manual, low-paid jobs that native-born workers dont usually want. For example, when Alabama passed HB 56, an immigration law in 2012 aimed at forcing self-deportation, the state lost roughly $11 billion in economic productivity
Immigration reform would also address another important angle in the debate the need to entice high-skilled immigrants. Higher-skilled immigrants provide talent that high-tech companies often cannot locate domestically. High-tech leaders recently organized a nationwide virtual march for immigration reform to pressure policymakers to remove barriers that prevent them from recruiting the workers they need. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fixing immigration makes sound fiscal sense. Economist Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda
as crops were left to wither and jobs were lost. calculated in 2010 that comprehensive immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion to the countrys GDP over 10 years and add $66 billion in tax revenue enough to fully fund the Small Business Administration and the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce for over two years. As Congress continues to wring its hands and debate the issue, lawmakers must understand what both businesses and workers already know: The
American economy needs comprehensive immigration reform.
114 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Economy Impact Extensions
115 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Reform Key to Economy

CIRs critical to economic growth---multiple internals Klein 1/29 Ezra is a columnist for The Washington Post. To Fix the U.S. Economy, Fix Immigration,
2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/to-fix-the-u-s-economy-fix-immigration.html
Washington tends to have a narrow view of what counts as economic policy. Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we pass, or any deficit reduction we try. Most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy. The truth is, the
most important piece of economic policy we pass -- or dont pass -- in 2013 may be something we dont think of as economic policy at all: immigration reform. Congress certainly doesnt consider it economic policy, at least not officially. Immigration laws go through the
House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy: About a tenth of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More
than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a foreign-born founder. Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, theres little dispute about their effect on wages overall: They lift them. The economic case for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. Its even conventional wisdom about the U.S. The retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5-to-1 today to 3-to-1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more retirees is tough on any economy. Importing Workers Theres nothing controversial about that analysis. But if thats not controversial, then immigration shouldnt be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. Its akin to raising the birth rate, only easier, because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration. When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks -- at least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here. From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isnt that we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. Its that we might not. Few economic problems wouldnt be improved by more immigration. If youre worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If youre concerned about the slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If youre worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution youll find.
CIR key to economy Smith 12. [Gerry, technology reporter, "Brain Drain: Why We're Driving Immigration Talent Overseas" Huffington Post -- November 5 -www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/immigrant-entrepreneur_n_2077183.html] Stories like his are not unique. Theyre also troubling
for the U.S. economy, advocates say. For the first time, the number of immigrant-founded startups is in decline, as foreign-born entrepreneurs struggle to obtain a limited number of visas and green cards and decide to launch companies in other countries that offer perks to start businesses there. Losing founders like Darash, who launch startups that create jobs, means that America risks losing a source of employment and a competitive edge in the global economy as the country claws its way out of a recession, they say. For years, immigrant entrepreneurs have propelled the growth of Silicon Valley, building
some of the most successful tech companies in the world: Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was born in Russia; Elon Musk, co-founder of PayPal and Tesla, was born in South Africa; Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, was born in India. When they immigrated, it was likely easier for them because there was not a backlog that there is today, according to Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University who researches high-tech immigration. Immigrants
are more than twice as likely to start a 116 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
business as native-born Americans, according to a report earlier this year by the Partnership for a New American Economy. And their companies have produced sizable economic benefits. This year, engineering and technology companies founded in the United States employed about 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales, according to Wadhwa. About a quarter of those companies had at least one foreign-born founder. An estimated
three out of every four startups fail, if not more. But by the conventional wisdom of Silicon Valley, Darashs chances were even slimmer. For one, he does not have a co-founder. He insists he doesnt need one. (Paul Graham, creator of the startup incubator Y Combinator, has said having a co-founder is critical because a startup is too much for one person to bear.) Darash also never worked for a major tech company before, so he did not have the network of contacts that help other entrepreneurs find engineers and meet investors. But what he has lacked in support and connections he has made up for through a work ethic that borders on obsession. Asaf is a stubborn guy, said Adam Gries, a childhood friend and founder of Smart Bites, a smartphone app that teaches people English. He gets into his head that something is going to happen and hes tenacious. Darash awakes every morning at 4:30 a.m., takes the BART train from his home in Berkeley to San Francisco, and arrives at the office by 6 a.m. He works for an hour, then walks across the street to the gym to swim and lift weights (A back injury he suffered while serving in the Israeli army requires him to stay physically strong). He typically does not go home until 9 p.m., after his children have gone to bed. Employees say he is a total workaholic who sends emails past midnight and sleeps just a few hours a night. I have a one-and-a-half year old who sees his Daddy maybe three hours a week, Darash said. Its hard to explain how much sacrifice you make to bring a company from an idea to something real, especially if its a company with high-level technology. He is hands-on about all aspects of the company, from courting new clients to writing code. But lately, Darash has been distracted, spending valuable hours gathering documents and talking to lawyers, instead of running his company. His wife recently flew back to Israel to find housing and a school for their kids in case they have to leave the United States. He describes feeling a range of emotions: anger, fear, frustration. Mostly, though, he is confused. In his homeland of Israel, politicians fight over who can attract more foreign entrepreneurs. The United States, he says, should be rolling out the welcome mat for him, not ushering him out the door. I could not even comprehend this would become a problem, he said. Im creating a company. Im creating jobs. Theres nothing bad in what Im doing and theres nothing Im taking away from someone else. The only thing I m doing is creating more! SERIOUS ALARM Since
2005, the number of immigrant-founded startups in Silicon Valley has declined from 52 percent to 44 percent, according to Wadhwa, who argues this drop is cause for serious alarm because America needs to attract immigrant entrepreneurs for its economy to recover. The United States risks losing a key growth engine right at the moment when its economy is stuck in a deep ditch, growing slowly and struggling to create jobs, Wadhwa wrote in his new book, The Immigrant Exodus. Their recent decline could be linked to entrepreneurs finding better business prospects abroad, especially in countries with growing economies like India and China. But advocates say a major reason why immigrants are launching fewer startups in the United States is because they are struggling to secure visas to remain in the country.
Increase in high-skilled visas key to US growth. Bloomberg, 10/23/2012. Blame Politics for the U.S. Engineer Shortage, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1023/blame-politics-for-the-u-s-engineer-shortage.html.
Given the tepid economic recovery, its sad that Congress cannot enact a pro-growth immigration policy. Giving citizenship or permanent residency to more high-skilled immigrants is perhaps the single-easiest way to grow the American economy . Science and technology companies face labor shortages in their industries, preventing expansion , and the students themselves want to stay here and make
valuable contributions to research and business. All we have to do is let these people stay here and let American companies hire them. The cost of failing to do so is large, as
the American technology industry is deeply dependent on the talent of
high-skilled immigrants. More than 20 percent of all Americans with degrees in science and engineering are foreign-born , meaning that immigrants are two-times overrepresented in these fields. It's even more concentrated in computer science and engineering: Immigrants make up almost a third of all degree holders in these sectors, both of which currently face severe shortages of talent . The best economic research on high-skilled immigration, recently assembled here by the Kauffman Foundation, suggests extensive economic gains from growing Americas stock of human capital . For
117 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
just one example,
a disproportionate fraction of American startups and patents -- and that means jobs,
too -- come from the entrepreneurship and ingenuity of our immigrants .

A new STEM visa program would be good, but it would be better to simply expand the number of green cards issued based on "employment-based preferences." These visas go to immigrants who come here to do work with outstanding qualifications in their fields. They are scientists of "sustained national or international acclaim and recognition." They are the world's best teachers and researchers, who want to work in our universities. They are holders of advanced degrees with five years or more of professional experience or have at least two years' worth of training in specialized fields. And yet, we only admit about 140,000 of them a year. That's just 13 percent of the total number of permanent-residency visas granted in 2011. Why on Earth do we not want this talent? The world's brightest want to bring their human capital to the U.S., and we turn them away.
All we have to do is open the door: These employment immigration visa
programs are routinely oversubscribed, and the number of visas available has not grown in ten years ,
as shown by the accompanying graph. Let's hope we don't realize the magnitude of our error only when we stop winning Nobel prizes in science, or when the next tech breakthrough comes from a graduate of an American university who we've forced to live and work abroad.
If the U.S.
wants to lead the world in research and innovation, we have to let the innovators come here and work .
High skilled immigration key to growth and competitiveness. Adam Ozimek and Noah Smith, 6/13/2012. Associate at an economics consulting firm and a blogger with Modeled
Behavior; PhD Candidate in Economics at the University of Michigan, blogs at Noahpinion. Give Us Your Geniuses: Why Seeking Smart Immigrants Is a No-Brainer, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/give-us-your-geniuseswhy-seeking-smart-immigrants-is-a-no-brainer/258451/.
Historical anecdotes aside, the economic benefits of HSI are clear . " Human capital " -- economist jargon
for the skills and knowledge of the labor force -nation produces more. And be tapped.
is one of the key inputs of GDP . Put in more human capital, and your
high-skilled immigrants are bursting with human capital , like an oil field waiting to but very few would disagree that an inflow of geniuses is good for the
Economists may argue back and forth about fiscal stimulus , or monetary policy, or tax rates (and in
fact the two of us often do!),
economy . High-skilled immigrants are not just good at their jobs. They create jobs. Research by the Kaufmann Foundation has documented that immigrants are unusually entrepreneurial, and High-Skilled Immigrants even more so . More than half of the start-ups in Silicon Valley , for instance, were started by immigrants, along with 25% of venture-backed companies that went public between 1990 and 2006.
In addition,
high-skilled immigrants are innovators as well. Economists Jennifer Hunt and Marjolaine
Gauthier-Loiselle find that a 1% increase in the share of immigrant college graduates in the population increases patents per capita by as much as 9-18%, after accounting for the "positive spillovers" by
which HSI boost innovation by native-born inventors. Conservatives should be eager to see American businesses and investors get their hands on such an unparalleled source of high-quality labor. But there is an economic benefit from HSI that should be particularly enticing to liberals: High-skilled immigration works against inequality. Nowadays, the talk is all about "the 1 percent," top executives, and the finance industry. But equally important is the divergence of America's middle class that occurred in the 1980s. As returns to education skyrocketed, an educated upper middle class pulled away from a medium-skilled lower middle class. The disparity stopped increasing after the 80s, but it has never gone away.
118 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
HSI will fight this trend. Boosting the supply of high-skilled workers makes low- and mid-skilled workers proportionately more scarce, increasing their relative incomes . Economist Enrico Moretti finds that earnings of a high school graduate increase 7% for every 10% increase in the percent of people in a city that are college graduates. While having more high-skilled workers around tends to raise everyone's salaries, Moretti's research shows that low-skilled workers benefit four to five times more than college graduates . Even as liberals work to find a way to counteract the problem of the 1
percent, they should view HSI as a step toward turning America back into a true middle-class society. WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY If all this makes HSI sound like an unbelievable bargain, it's because that's exactly what it is.
What voters and
policymakers need to realize is that we are standing at a unique moment in our history, where both the supply of High-Skilled Immigrants and the need for them are at historic highs . Salaries for software
engineers have doubled, signaling high demand. And the number of educated immigrants clamoring to move here from countries like India is extremely high. The only thing keeping employers from employees is the U.S. Border Patrol.
But this opportunity may not last. As countries develop, high-skilled people can earn decent salaries at home, or start businesses more cheaply than in America. Already, a growing number of highskilled Chinese people are choosing to return to China after going to graduate school in the U.S . We still have a window of opportunity to grab HSI from India and Southeast Asia, but that window will not be open forever . A well-documented thicket of visa restrictions and skilled immigration quotas is leaving wouldbe American geniuses on the outside looking in.
A report by the Technology Policy Institute found that visa
restrictions kicked out enough foreign graduates of U.S. universities to slice $13.6 billion off of our GDP from 2003 through 2007 . Meanwhile, countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK are actively wooing the immigrants we shut out; although the U.S. still attracts the greatest percentage of HighSkilled Immigrants, these other countries, especially our neighbor to the north, are catching up fast .
119 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Our Economy Internal Link is Bigger

Reform controls the internal link to the economy more jobs, innovation, and market demand. Krudy 13. [Edward, correspondent, "Analysis: Immigration reform could boost U.S. economic growth" Reuters -- January 29 -www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/us-usa-economyimmigration-idUSBRE90S06R20130129]
The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said. By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China. "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. President Barack Obama plans to
launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals
would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh. Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los
Angeles
120 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Global Economy Resilent

New collapse triggers total collapse the economy is structurally weak. Isidore, CNN Money, 11
(Chris, 8/10/2011, Recession 2.0 would hurt worse, http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm, accessed 1-6-12, CMM) And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into another downturn, they generally agree on one thing -- a new recession would be worse than the last and very difficult to pull out of. "Going back into recession now would be scary, because we don't have the resources or the will to respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a depression." Zandi said the recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days
ago. Other economists surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new recession to be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined Zandi in increasing their estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is another concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday following the Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days. Recovery at risk A plunge in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided a recession after the stock market crash of
with the economy already so fragile, the shock of another stock market drop and resulting loss of wealth could be the tipping point. "It really does matter where the economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a prescription for a long, painful recession,"
1987. "Stock price declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But he said. Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad news at this point increases the risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another
recession could be even worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large
number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various
parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values continue to lose ground and are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. But what has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around. "The reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it. Global econ not resilient 121 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Kern, 3/27 - Chief Economist at the British Chambers of Commerce (David, 3/27/13, "Markets cannot defy the economic realities
indefinitely", http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/financial-director/opinion/2253942/markets-cannot-defy-the-economic-realities-indefinitely, KONTOPOULOS)
THE UPBEAT MOOD of the financial markets, reinforced by strong US job figures, has pushed share prices to new multi-year highs. The S&P 500 approached its all-time high in the first half of March; other stock market indices also surged. But the hard reality remains that the world economy is facing serious obstacles to a sustainable recovery. Many growth forecasts are being downgraded. The eurozone is in recession, with GDP likely to fall in 2013. The US is doing better than other regions, but its outlook is still mediocre. Even China is facing difficulties; growth is slowing, at a time when concerns over rising inflation and a property market bubble are forcing the Chinese authorities to tighten policy. The present situation is risky and potentially unstable. The main force driving the exuberance is the expectation that aggressive injections of huge amounts of cheap money by the main central banks will continue in the foreseeable future. Hopes that the real economy will improve are playing a minor role only, even in the US. Indeed, if growth picks up significantly, the effect could be perverse, because fears of higher
interest rates would almost certainly push up bond yields and depress equities. However, since real growth is likely to remain weak in the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to ask whether the reliance on ever-increasing monetary accommodation can sustain indefinitely buoyant financial markets. Sequester effect The US economy created 236,000 new jobs in February, much more than the expected increase of 160,000; the jobless rate edged down from 7.9 to 7.7%. Construction jobs rose by 48,000 the biggest increase in almost six years confirming the housing upturn. US house prices rose by some 7% in the year to December 2012. But,
in spite of the positive news, there is a risk that the sequester, the $85bn obligatory budget cuts that came into effect on 1 March, will slow US growth. Even if the politicians agree to modify the sequester, the Federal Reserve is determined to maintain ultra-low official rates at 0-0.25%, and to continue with bond purchases totalling $85bn per month until the US jobless rate falls to 6.5%. This is unlikely to happen before mid-2014. Meanwhile, GDP growth in 2013 is forecast at 2%, much stronger than in the eurozone, but slightly lower than in 2012 and weak by US historical standards. The eurozone recession deepened further, as
GDP fell by 0.6% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3, the regions worst performance in almost four years. The fourth quarter contrac tion was not confined to the weak periphery. Germany, the largest and strongest regional economy, shrank by a surprisingly large 0.6% in Q4, while
Frances GDP fell by 0.3%. The eurozone in total recorded declines in every quarter of last year; in full-year terms, GDP declined by 0.6% in 2012, a worse performance than in the US, UK and Japan. This year, the economy is expected to improve slowly. But for 2013 as a whole, eurozone GDP is still expected to fall by a further 0.2%, one again worse than in other major regions. Limited benefits Threats of an imminent euro collapse have eased since the height of the crisis in 2011. The European Central Bank (ECB) stands ready to buy the sovereign bonds of weak countries, if they are prepared to accept prescribed conditions of deficit-reduction and structural reforms. But national pride has so far stopped countries such as Spain from asking for help, and this limits the benefits of the vital ECB support. There are also mounting risks that new crises may erupt. Cyprus is facing severe banking pressures and urgently needs support. But difficulties
have emerged, reflecting differences over burden sharing. An early agreement is still likely, but the present brinkmanship is dangerous. Cyprus is a tiny country, accounting for only 0.1-0.2% of eurozone GDP. But there could be far-reaching negative repercussions if the country is pushed into default. The
inconclusive results of the recent Italian elections could become a source of instability. If it proves impossible to form a new, stable Italian government, there will have to be new elections, and this could lead to a prolonged period of uncertainty. So far, the markets have not been unduly concerned, but the situation could easily worsen. The role of the ECB will become even more critical in these circumstances. At its last meeting, the ECB decided to keep official rates
unchanged at 0.75%. But in the face of negative growth and unresolved political uncertainties, we expect a reduction to 0.5% in the next few months. In the UK, the markets are primarily focusing on the Budget on 20 March, and on Mark Carneys arrival in July as the new Bank of England governor. Following the 0.3% negative GDP growth in Q4 2012, and the downgrading of the UKs credit rating by Moodys, the
government is under renewed pressure to change course and abandon its Plan A for cutting the deficit. This is unlikely to happen. Though we lost the prestigious AAA status, our rating is still very high. We cannot afford repeated downgrades. But UK economic policies will be modified, by combining further spending cuts with pro-growth measures, e.g. more spending on infrastructure, and tax cuts to encourage investment. If the markets believe the chancellor is 122 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
determined to slash the structural deficit, they will tolerate more spending on measures likely to increase the economys productive potential. The expectation that fiscal consolidation must be offset by more aggressive monetary policies is problematic. The markets expect more quantitative easing, even before Carney takes over. But tolerating higher inflation, for a longer period, is risky . Sterling has already weakened markedly, in anticipation of policy changes. If the pound falls further, the benefits to exports will be small. But higher inflation will squeeze businesses and individuals, and cause serious damage to the economy.
123 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
US Key to Global Economy

And the US is key to economic recovery Caploe 9 [David, CEO of the American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia, Focus still
on America to lead global recovery, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis]
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'America-centered ' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this
deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current
crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If
the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort . China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second
largest economy. There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale.
Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of
the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It
will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic recovery for the foreseeable future , even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began in the US - and it is going to have to be solved there too.
124 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
125 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Biodefense Impact Extensions
126 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Immigration Reform Key to Biodefense

A shortage in STEM workers cripples US biotech leadership- thas necessary to develop countermeasures to bioterrorism
Goldberg et al 04 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill, Ashcraft, Paul, Burlingame, Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John, Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies 2004: Biotechnology, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University)
Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much the same way information technology did during the previous two decades. Biotechnologyis still an immature
industry that has yet to reach its full potential, but it is already an important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S. with a tremendous opportunity to address many of the countrys most pressing defense, health, and economic issues. It also holds promise for improvement
in global health and welfare but only to the degree that other nations are willing to utilize the technology and are successful in their respective biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government investment in basic science, government regulation, and the government product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial base provides the U.S. with a unique competitive advantage and is a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader in biotechnology. While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained long-term growth. Demographics and a geometric expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century. The U.S.
is the world leader in the biotechnology industry in all aspects the number of companies, size of the research base, number of products and patents, and level of revenue. While the U.S. is the dominant player in todays biotechnology market, other countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively investing in government sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US dominance overall. The U.S. future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage of U.S. scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer U.S. college graduates in math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on foreign students and scientists.Unfortunately, biotechnologys potential for improving the quality of life in the U.S. and the rest of the world is tempered by the risk of enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or bioweapons against the US or its allies. The potential
dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective non-proliferation policies and mitigate bio-weapons threats. As biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and industrial sector, policy
makers at the U.S. and global level must continue to refine global non-proliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure biotechnologys potential for mis-use does not outweigh its ability to address the worlds most pressing needs.
A shortage in STEM workers cripples US biotech leadership- thats necessary to develop countermeasures to bioterrorism
Goldberg et al 2004 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill, Ashcraft, Paul, Burlingame, Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John, Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies 2004: Biotechnology, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University)
Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much the same way information technology did during the previous two decades. Biotechnology
is still an immature industry that has yet to reach its full potential, but it is already an important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S. with a tremendous opportunity to address many of the countrys most pressing defense, health, and economic issues. It also holds promise for improvement in global health and welfare but only to the degree that other nations are willing
to utilize the technology and are successful in their respective biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government investment in basic science, government regulation, and the government product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial base provides the U.S. with a unique competitive advantage and is a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader in biotechnology. While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained long-term growth. Demographics and a geometric expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century.
127 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
The U.S. is the world leader in the biotechnology industry in all aspects the number of companies, size of the research base, number of products and patents, and level of revenue. While the U.S. is the dominant player in todays biotechnology market, other countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively investing in government sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US dominance overall. The U.S. future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage of U.S. scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer U.S. college graduates in math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on foreign students and scientists. Unfortunately, biotechnologys potential for improving the quality of life in the U.S. and the rest of the world is tempered by the risk of enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or bioweapons against the US or its allies. The potential dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective non-proliferation policies and mitigate bio-weapons threats. As biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and industrial sector, policy makers at the U.S. and global level must continue to refine global non-proliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure biotechnologys potential for mis-use does not outweigh its ability to address the worlds most pressing needs.
128 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Bioterror Risk High

Risk of attack is high only counter-measures solve Glassman 12 (James, Expert: U.S. unprepared for bioterrorism attack, April 5,
http://www.bioprepwatch.com/us_bioterror_policy/expert-u-s-unprepared-for-bioterrorismattack/323620/, CMR)
A recent essay published in Forbes magazine supports the contention that the not uninterested, in
United States remains woefully unprepared , if the chances that it will face an attack using biological weapons. James Glassman, a former undersecretary of state for public affairs and public diplomacy and the founder of the George W. Bush Institute, said that the United States remains vulnerable to an attack that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people because it lacks a means of producing needed medical countermeasures , according to Forbes. Three years ago, a Congressional commission concluded that there is 50 percent chance that there will be an attack using a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world by 2013. The Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism declared that the weapon used would more
likely be biological than nuclear. Regardless, Glassman said that the public has heard little about bioterrorism since the anthrax attacks in 2001, despite the considerable risk. Terrorists
could spray Bacillus anthracis from crop-dusters over football stadiums, Glassman wrote, Forbes reports. Or they could send intentionally infected fanatics out to spread the smallpox virus through a crowded city, doing far more damage than a brigade of suicide bombers. Glassman pointed to last Octobers Bio-Response Report Card study, issued last year by the Bipartisan WMD Terrorism Research Center, as proof that the country needs to do more to confront the threat of bioterrorism. The report card gave the United States a D grade for its detection and diagnosis capability and for the availability of medical countermeasures. Glassman said that larger biopharmaceutical firms have done little to develop countermeasures, but small firms have filled the gap with mixed success.
129 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Bioweapons Outweigh War

Bioweapons comparatively outweigh war Control Ochs 2Richard Ochs, member of the Baltimore Emergency Response Network and founding chairman
of the Students for a Democratic Society in 1964 at the University of Maryland in College Park [June 9, 2002, Biological Weapons Must Be Abolished Immediately, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html] Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on earth. Any perceived
military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in laboratories.
While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The Black Death of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could cause.
C. Geography Washington Times 8 [Worse than nuclear threat

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/10/worse-than-nuclear-threat/]
Of the three sorts, biological to do. A
weapons might be the easiest to reproduce safely in a lab, assuming one knows what biological agent, as a weapon of mass destruction or a terror weapon, is the least expensive as well as the easiest to disseminate. A biological agent does not need a delivery mechanism and can be transported by one person. It can pass undetected through customs and border guards, given that it is odorless and colorless.
All that is needed to spread an epidemic of botulism, for example, or mad cow disease is to hang around a truck stop for a few hours until a semi pulling a load of cattle on its way to market drives in. Wait until the driver leaves his load unattended, then shortage scrub a previously infected rag around the railings and the mouths of a few of the cattle, and let nature do the rest. The disadvantage, for the terrorist, is that the person carrying the rag is likely to become infected. However, with no of jihadists queuing up to become martyrs, finding two or three volunteers willing to die a horrible, slow and excruciatingly painful death should be no problem. From a financial and cost-effective perspective, biological
agents remain the cheapest and, in all probability, the most likely agents of mass destruction to become available to terrorist groups.
In their haste to leave training camps and bases of operation in Afghanistan in the wake of rapidly advancing U.S. forces, al Qaeda agents left behind piles of documents, including videotapes showing tests and the effects of chemical agents on animals. Chemical weapons are more cumbersome to produce, require larger amounts to cause enough damage to leave a psychological scar and require a delivery mechanism such as an artillery shell.
A biological agent can cause far more deaths than a nuclear weapon, because it is not limited geographically, unlike a nuclear bomb. For example, an infected truck driver in Omaha, Neb., infects an Army sergeant he meets in a diner outside Tulsa, Okla.
The sergeant travels by plane to New York, where he changes planes, boarding one bound for Frankfurt, Germany. Again, he changes planes, this time flying to Kuwait, where he joins up with several members of his unit heading into Iraq. Along the way, the sergeant has infected scores of people at every airport between Omaha and Baghdad. Those people in turn would have traveled on to Australia, South America, Canada, European cities and other parts of the world. Within
few days, people from Sydney, Australia, to Seattle could start dying. 130 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A nuclear device, on the other hand, would devastate the immediate area and, depending on its size, contaminate everything in a radius of several miles, but the damage would be confined to the immediate area of detonation, plus the fallout zone. In addition, depending on the wind direction and speed, radioactive particles could be carried hundreds,
if not thousands, of miles. But the image of a nuclear blast carries greater impact psychologically.
Nuclear war doesnt cause extinction Seitz 11, Harvard University Center for International Affairs visiting scholar, (Russell, Nuclear winter was and is debatable, Nature, 7-711, Vol 475, pg37, accessed 9-27-11, CMR) Alan Robock's contention that there has been no real scientific debate about the 'nuclear winter' concept is itself debatable (Nature 473, 275 276; 2011). This
potential climate disaster, popularized in Science in 1983, rested on the output of a one-dimensional model that was later shown to overestimate the smoke a nuclear holocaust might engender. More refined estimates,
combined with advanced three-dimensional models (see http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/kss8te), have dramatically reduced the extent and severity of the projected cooling. Despite this, Carl Sagan, who co-authored the 1983 Science paper, went so far as to posit the extinction of Homo sapiens (C. Sagan Foreign Affairs 63, 7577; 1984). Some
regarded this apocalyptic prediction as an exercise in mythology. George Rathjens of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology protested: Nuclear winter is the worst example of the misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory, (see http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/yujz84) and climatologist Kerry Emanuel observed that the subject had become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity (Nature 319, 259; 1986). Robock's single-digit fall in temperature is at odds with
the subzero (about 25 C) continental cooling originally projected for a wide spectrum of nuclear wars. Whereas Sagan predicted darkness at noon from a USSoviet nuclear conflict, Robock projects global sunlight that is several orders of magnitude brighter for a PakistanIndia conflict literally the difference between night and day. Since 1983, very term freeze spanning 11,000 degree-days Celsius (a measure of the severity of winters) to
the projected worst-case cooling has fallen from a Siberian deep numbers so unseasonably small as to call the
'nuclear winter' into question.
Counterforce targeting checks Mueller, 9 Professor Political Science Ohio State U (John, Woody Hayes Chair of National Security
Studies and Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda p. 8) To begin to approach a condition that can credibly justify applying such extreme characterizations as societal annihilation, a full-out attack with hundreds, probably thousands, of thermonuclear bombs would be required. Even in such extreme cases , the area actually devastated by the bombs' blast and thermal pulse effects would be limited : 2,000 I-MT explosions with a destructive radius of 5
miles each would directly demolish less than 5 percent of the territory of the United States, for example. Obviously, if major population centers were targeted, this sort of attack could inflict massive casualties. Back in cold war days, when such devastating events sometimes seemed uncomfortably likely, a number of studies were conducted to estimate the consequences of massive thermonuclear attacks. One of the most prominent of these considered several possibilities. The
most likely scenario --one that could be perhaps be considered at least to begin to approach the rational-was a "counterforce" strike in which well over 1,000 thermonuclear weapons would be targeted at America's ballistic missile silos, strategic airfields, and nuclear submarine bases in an effort to destroy the country's strategic ability to retaliate. Since the attack would not directly target population centers, most of the ensuing deaths would be from radioactive fallout, and the study estimates that from 2 to 20 million , depending mostly on wind, weather, and sheltering, would perish during the first month.
131 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
India Impact Scenario Extensions
132 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Reform Key to Relations

Reform is key to Indian relations LA Times 11/9/12 [Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-bysource-countries.html]
"Comprehensive immigration
reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China ." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy , Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not ," he said.
133 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: relations resilient
134 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Visa policy is dragging down US-India relations now only CIR can reaffirm our alliance with India
Zee News 12 *Krishna, Hillary to discuss visa fee hike in NY, October 1st, 2012, http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/krishnahillary-to-discuss-visa-fee-hike-in-ny_802978.html] New York: The
issue of US visa fee hike, which has hurt several Indian IT firms, is expected to come up for discussion when External Affairs Minister SM Krishna meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here on Monday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. India has "consistently" taken up the issue of the visa fee hike with the US and the issue will figure in talks between Krishna and Clinton, official sources said. The US had raised visa fee in 2010 to
fund its enhanced costs on securing border with Mexico under the Border Security Act. Some of the top Indian companies TCS, Infosys, Wipro and Mahindra Satyam were affected by the US action and India is expected to soon seek consultations with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the issue. The sources said that young
Indian professionals working in the US have been the "cornerstone" of India-US relations and are a pillar in the improved bilateral relations that has brought the two countries closer. Hiking visa fees or limiting the number of work visas available to Indian companies is tantamount to "undermining that pillar and growth in India-US relations," they added. "Raising visa fees and putting other barriers is not in consonance with the forward thinking of growing bilateral ties," the
sources said. This will be the third bilateral meeting between Krishna and Clinton this year. They had previously met in India in April and again in June in Washington. The sources said that the two countries have a fairly elaborate agenda and the visa issue is one of the issues in a broader relationship. Krishna will also address the 67th session of the UN General Assembly today.
part of the world are essential to the peace and prosperity of the world. h-1bs are key to indian relations.
Economic Times 09 *Oct. 19, India to ask US for more H-1B visas, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-byindustry/services/travel/visa-power/India-to-ask-US-for-more-H-1B-visas/articleshow/5137427.cms]
India is likely to ask the United States to raise the cap on visas for skilled workers at the bilateral trade forum
meeting to be held in New Delhi later this month, a government official told ET. India may also push for a special mechanism for Indian professionals travelling to the US for short-term assignments arising out of contractual obligations. The
issue of a more liberal and simple US visa regime for professionals will be high on Indias agenda at the bilateral meeting to be chaired by
Indian commerce minister Anand Sharma and the US trade representative Ron Kirk, the official said. H-1B visas, which are non-immigrant US visas for skilled professionals, given for up to six years, are highly popular with Indian IT companies such as Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Satyam, which usually corner a big chunk of such visas issued by the US. The subsidiaries of these companies in the US usually employ H-1B visa professionals to deliver services at customers location. The
number of world-wide H-1B visas issued to professionals was reduced by more than half to 65,000 per year about two years back. This has affected the functioning of Indian companies in the US, especially ones in the IT sector, the official said. He added that India was keen on taking up with the new US government the issue of a possible increase in the cap on such visas . Although, this year, the
entire quota of 65,000 H-1B visas has not yet been utilised because of the on-going global economic slow down, the official pointed out that it was a temporary phase and the demand for US work visas would soar the moment the global economy began to look up.
135 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
India-Pakistan War Impacts

Nuclear war Schaffer 2 [Spring 2002, TeresitaDirector of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Security, Washington Quarterly, Lexis] Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and
investment benefit
both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India,
the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States.
Relations are k2 solve every major impact, including US primacy in Asia, China rise, and Asian instability Armitage et al 10. Richard is the President of Armitage International and former Deputy Secretary of State. R. Nicholas Burns is a
Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for New American Security. Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of U.S.-India Relations, October, Center for New American Security, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Burns%20-%20Natural%20Allies.pdf
A strengthened U.S.-India strategic partnership is thus imperative in this new era. The transformation of U.S. ties with New Delhi over the past 10 years, led by Presidents Clinton and Bush, stands as one of the most significant triumphs of recent American foreign policy. It has also been a bipartisan success. In the last several years
alone, the United States and India have completed a landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreement, enhanced military ties, expanded defense trade, increased bilateral trade and investment and deepened their global political cooperation. Many
prominent Indians and Americans, however, now fear this rapid expansion of ties has stalled. Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward momentum that characterized recent cooperation has subsided. The Obama administration has taken significant steps to break through this inertia, including with
its Strategic Dialogue this spring and President Obamas planned state visit to India in November 2010. Yet there remains a sense among observers in both countries that this critical relationship is falling short of its promise. We believe it
is critical to rejuvenate the U.S.- India partnership and put U.S. relations with India on a more solid foundation. The relationship requires a
bold leap forward. The United States should establish a vision for what it seeks in the relationship and give concrete meaning to the phrase strategic partnership. A nonpartisan working group of experts met at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) over the past eight months to review the main pillars of the U.S.-India relationship and we articulate here a specific agenda of action. In order to chart a more ambitious U.S.-India strategic partnership, we believe that the United States should commit, publicly and explicitly, to work with India in support of its permanent membership in an enlarged U.N. Security Council; seek a broad expansion of bilateral trade and investment, beginning with a Bilateral Investment Treaty; greatly expand the security relationship and boost defense trade; support Indian membership in key export control organizations, a step toward integrating India into global nonproliferation efforts; and liberalize U.S. export controls, including the removal of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) subsidiaries from the U.S. Entity List. These and the other actions outlined in this report will require India to make a number of commitments and policy changes, including taking rapid action to fully implement the Civil Nuclear Agreement; raising its caps on foreign investment; reducing barriers to defense and other forms of trade; enhancing its rules for protecting patents and other intellectual property; further harmonizing its export control lists with multilateral regimes; and seeking closer cooperation with the United States and like-minded partners in international organizations, including the United Nations. The U.S. relationship with India should be rooted in shared interests and values and should not be simply transactional or limited to occasional collaboration. Indias rise to global power is, we believe, in Americas strategic interest. As a result, the United States should not only seek a closer relationship with India, but actively assist its further emergence as a great power. U.S.
interests in a closer relationship with India include: Ensuring a stable Asian and global balance of power. Strengthening an open global trad[e]ing system. Protecting and preserving access to the global commons (air, sea, space, and cyber realms). Countering terrorism and violent extremism. Ensuring access to secure global energy resources. Bolstering the international nonproliferation regime. Promoting democracy and human rights. 136 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Fostering greater stability, security and economic prosperity in South Asia, including in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A strong U.S.-India strategic partnership will prove indispensable to the regions continued peace and prosperity. Both India and the United States have a vital interest in maintaining a stable balance of power in Asia. Neither seeks containment of China, but the likelihood of a peaceful Chinese rise increases if it ascends in a region where the great democratic powers are also strong. Growing U.S.-India strategic ties will ensure that Asia will not have a vacuum of power and will make it easier for both Washington and New Delhi to have productive relations with Beijing. In addition, a strengthened relationship with India, a natural democratic partner, will signal that the United States remains committed to a strong and enduring presence in Asia. The need for closer U.S.-India cooperation goes well beyond regional concerns. In light of its rise, India will play an increasingly vital role in addressing virtually all major global challenges. Now is the time to transform a series of bilateral achievements into a lasting regional and global partnership.
Global nuclear war Landay 00. (Jonathon, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent with 15 Years of Experience for Knight Ridder, Top
administration officials warn stakes for US are high in Asian conflicts, March 11th, Lexis)
even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. " We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster."
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But
137 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Cyberterrorism Impact Extensions
138 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Cyberterror Attacks Because of Worker Shortage

Shortage of skilled workers in cyber fields undermines defense against attacks. Reuters, 6/13/2012. Experts warn of shortage of U.S. cyber pros, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/13/usmedia-tech-summit-symantec-idUSBRE85B1E220120613.
Leading cyber experts warned of a shortage of talented computer security experts in the United States, making it difficult to protect corporate and government networks at a time when attacks are on the rise.
Symantec Corp Chief Executive Enrique Salem told the Reuters Media and Technology Summit in New York that his company was working with the U.S. military, other government agencies and universities to help develop new programs to train security professionals. " We don't have enough security professionals
and that's a big issue. What I would tell you is it's going to be a bigger issue from a national security perspective than people realize," he said on Tuesday.
Jeff Moss, a prominent hacking expert who sits on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council, said that it was difficult to persuade talented people with technical skills to enter the field because it can be a thankless task. "If you really look at security, it's like trying to prove a negative. If you do security well, nobody comes and says 'good job.' You only get called when things go wrong."
The warnings come at a time when the security industry is under fire for failing to detect increasingly sophisticated pieces of malicious software designed for financial fraud and espionage and failing to prevent the theft of valuable data.
Moss, who goes by the hacker name "Dark Tangent," said that he sees no end to the labor shortage. " None of the projections look positive ," said Moss, who serves as chief security officer for ICANN, a group that helps run some of the Internet's infrastructure. " The numbers I've seen look like shortages in the
20,000s to 40,000s for years to come ."

Reuters last month reported that the National Security Agency was setting up a new cyber-ops program at select universities to expand U.S. cyber expertise needed for secret intelligence operations against computer networks of adversaries. The cyber-ops curriculum is geared to providing the basic education for jobs in intelligence, military and law enforcement. The comments echo those of other
technology industry executives who complain U.S. universities do not
produce enough math and science graduates .
Immigration reform solves cybersecurity preparedness McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S.
Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html) We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's
developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly
dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was
there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited S tates, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, 139 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Page 140 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013 a tremendous ability to develop
more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have
these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .
That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks

Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, Structuring for Strategic Cyber Defense: A Cyber Manhattan Project Blueprint, 2008 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program /keynotes/saydjari.pdf)
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation
has a capability to quickly recover its critical information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States.
The National Cyber Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical capabilities. The following end-states Infrastructure Operations. Create
appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by determined adversaries. -Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to critical
US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can attack critical systems without investing substantial resources.
140 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Cyberterror Impacts
Cyberterrorists will obtain or launch nukes guarantees great power escalation. Jason Fritz, July 2009. Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former
Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond University. Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf.
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit wi thin established cyber terrorists capabilities, strategies, and
If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals . All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response
tactics.
141 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction.
Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.
142 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: Cyber Attacks Fail

Even if it fails, the U.S. will retaliate --- starts World War III
Lawson 9 (Dr. Sean, Assistant Professor in Communication University of Utah, Cross-Domain Response to Cyber Attacks and the Threat of Conflict Escalation, Transformation Tracker, 5-13, http://www.seanlawson.net/ ?p=477)
At a time when it seems impossible to avoid the seemingly growing hysteria over the threat of cyber war,[1] network security expert Marcus Ranum delivered a refreshing talk recently, The Problem with Cyber War, that took a critical look at a number of the assumptions underlying contemporary cybersecurity discourse in the United States. He
addressed one issue in partiuclar that I would like to riff on here, the issue of conflict escalationi.e. the possibility that offensive use of cyber attacks could escalate to the use of physical force. As I will show, his concerns are entirely legitimate as current U.S. military cyber doctrine assumes the possibility of what I call cross-domain responses to cyberattacks. Backing Your Adversary (Mentally) into a Corner Based on the premise that completely blinding a potential adversary is a good indicator to that adversary that an attack is iminent, Ranum has argued that The best thing that you could possibly do if you want to start World War III is launch a cyber attack. *...+ When people talk about cyber war like its a practical thing, what theyre really doing is me ssing
with the OK button for starting World War III. We need to get them to sit the f-k down and shut the f-k up. *2+ He is making a point similar to one that I have made in the past: Taking away an adversarys ability to make rational decisions could backfire. *3+ For example, Gregory Witol cautions that attacking the decision makers ability to perform rational calculations may cause more problems than it hopes to resolve. Removing the capacity for rational action may result in completely unforeseen consequences, including longer and bloodier battles than may otherwise have been. *4+ Cross -Domain Response So, from a theoretical standpoint, I think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for even greater concern. Its not just worrisome that a hypothetical blinding attack via cyberspace could send a signal of imminent attack and therefore trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for concern is that current **U.S. policy indicates that kinetic attacks** (i.e. physical use of force) **are seen as** potentially **legitimate responses to cyber attacks**. Most
worrisome is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible, something that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports. The reason, in part, is that the U.S. defense
community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a domain of warfare equivalent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own right to blur the online/offline, physical-space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads to some disconcerting conclusions. If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it becomes possible to define cyber attacks (whatever those may be said to entail) as acts of war. But
what happens if the U.S. is
attacked in any of the other domains? It retaliates . But it usually does not respond only within the domain in which it was
attacked. Rather, responses are typically cross-domain responsesi.e. a massive bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) might lead to air strikes against the attacker. Even more likely given a U.S. military way of warfare that emphasizes multidimensional, joint operations is a massive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space), simultaneously. The possibility of kinetic action in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber operations, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations [5]: Of course, the possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in cross-domain response. And while this may seem far fetched, it has not been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is, in fact, implied in current U.S. defense policy documents. From the National Military Strategy of the United States (2004): The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities that pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical weapons. They may rely more on disruptive impact than destructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against transportation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent. [6] The
authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare respond to this by saying, Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this statement implies that the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks against the United States as being in the same category as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response to certain kinds of cyberattacks (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) may be possible. It also sets a relevant scalea cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated with a relatively small release of a lethal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness. *7+ Asked by the New York Times to comment on this, U.S. defense officials would not deny that nuclear retaliation remains an option for response to a massive cyberattack:
143 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
General Links
144 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Executive Action Links

Executive actions burn capital Eberly, 1/21 --- coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of
Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland (1/21/2013, Todd, The presidential power trap; Barack Obama is discovering that modern presidents have difficulty amassing political capital, which hinders their ability to enact a robust agenda, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bsed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion))
Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the reelection of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced
with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital .
145 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Agency Links
Agencies no longer shield Wallison 3 (Peter J., Resident FellowAmerican Enterprise Institute, A Power Shift No One Noticed,
AEI Online, 1-1, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15652/pub_detail.asp)
Control over independent regulatory agencies has traditionally resided with Congress, which created all of them. The recent controversy over the Securities and Exchange Commission suggests, however, that now Congress,
the White House, and the public all take for granted that the independent agencies are the president's responsibility. The political frenzy surrounding Enron's collapse and other corporate scandals may have produced--or at least exposed--a significant shift in the relationship between Congress and the White House. The efforts of congressional Democrats to pin some of the blame for the scandals on the president and the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission--and President Bush's willingness to act as though the SEC is his responsibility--may signal the end of more than a century of experimentation with independent regulatory agencies as a so-called "fourth branch" of government. History of Independent Agencies Independent agencies such as the SEC have always been regarded as "arms of Congress," outside the control of the executive branch. The president appointed the members and the
chairman, but the terms for these officials overlapped presidential administrations, allowing--and encouraging--them to act without policy direction from the White House. The political fallout from the recent scandals has turned all this on its head. These independent agencies are creatures of Congress, not the Constitution. The first, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), was established in 1887 to control the powerful railroad industry. Later, especially during the Progressive and New Deal eras, a number of other agencies were created, several of which still exist--including the SEC, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. Several others, such as the Federal Power Commission and the Civil Aeronautics Board, went out of business a quarter-century ago. The ICC closed its doors in 1995. There was no clear reason, or constitutional rationale, why the duties of these bodies could not have been performed by regular executive branch departments. Presidents have expressed their unhappiness with this diminution of their authority, and some have tried to influence agency policies through the appointments process, but they have not confronted Congress on the issue. And Congress--always jealous of its prerogatives in the face of the executive branch's growing power--has never conceded that the independent regulatory agencies could take policy direction from the president. Then, in 1971, the status quo was called into question. The President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization--known as the Ash Council after its chairman, Roy L. Ash of Litton Industries--recommended that almost all of the functions of these bodies be transferred to single administrators, appointed by the president and accountable to him. The Ash Council's rationale for this reform was simple: If the president's policy control did not extend to these independent agencies, then his responsibility for them could not be clearly fixed and voters could not hold him accountable. Moreover, the president's policies, even if adopted by Congress, could be frustrated through contrary actions by the independent agencies. The Ash Council's proposal, like many reform ideas, went nowhere. There was no support in Congress for enhancing the president's power, and the Nixon administration--beset first by economic problems and then by the Watergate scandal--had no stomach for challenging Congress. (The Ash Council's report did lead, however, to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, headed by an administrator who answers to the president.) During the Reagan administration, however, the executive branch became more assertive. The Justice Department took the Constitution's separation of powers seriously, which by implication challenged the very legitimacy of the independent regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, because of congressional sensitivities and the continuing sense that these bodies were quasi-judicial in nature, White House officials were warned that all contacts with the independent regulatory agencies had to be approved in advance--or actually carried out--by the White House counsel's office. The Reagan administration never seriously considered taking on Congress through a legislative proposal that would bring these independent agencies within the constitutionally established structure. The Presidential Role All this history appears to have been forgotten in the politics of 2002. The Democrats, hoping to make an election issue out of the SEC's "failure" to stop "corporate corruption," proceeded to blame a Republican president for events that were solely within the authority of the SEC. There was no indication that departments or agencies unquestionably controlled by the president had any role for policing either the securities industry or the companies under scrutiny. So if President Bush was somehow responsible for what happened at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and the rest, it had to be as a consequence of some presidential authority over the SEC. To be sure, the president had appointed the chairman and the other members of the SEC, but that in itself would not make him blameworthy unless one assumed that he was also directly responsible for how the SEC acted before, and after, the scandals erupted. That is the nub of the important but largely unnoticed change that has occurred: the
unchallenged assumption on the part of all parties--in Congress, in the media, among the public, and even in the White House itself--that the president was fully accountable for an agency that has always been viewed as independent. The significance of this change in the grand government scheme of things can hardly be overstated. Without legislation or judicial decision, the president has suddenly become electorally responsible for the decisions of bodies that were considered to be within the special purview of Congress, susceptible only to congressional policy direction. Of course, this functional revolution did not give the president any new powers with respect to the independent regulatory 146 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
agencies. But
{File Name}
the die is now cast. The way the American people look at the president's responsibilities apparently is changing, and that will affect the attitude of Congress. If the American people believe that the
president should be responsible for the actions of the SEC, it will be difficult to convince them otherwise. Significantly, since Harvey Pitt's resignation as SEC chairman in November, the media have routinely referred to the president's choice to head the SEC, investment banker William H. Donaldson, as a member of the Bush "economic team."
Agency action links to politics

Thomas McGarity, Professor, Law, University of Texas, "Administrative Law as Blood Sport: Policy Erosion in a Highly Partisan Age," DUKE LAW JOURNAL v. 61, 5--12, LN.
The interchange-fee rulemaking experience illustrates how stakeholders in high-stakes rulemakings have begun going beyond the conventional responses to rulemaking initiatives by adopting a new toolbox of strategies better suited to the deeply divided political economy. If the players on one side of the policy debate perceive that they are unlikely to prevail in the administrative arena, they will move the implementation game to another arena - the White House, a congressional hearing, a political fundraising dinner, a thinktank white paper, talk-radio programs, attack advertising, telephone solicitation and "push polls," or Internet blogs. Many of these new venues were amply used in the battle that accompanied the interchange-fee rulemaking. In addition, although lawyers for the stakeholders employ the careful language of administrative law in arenas in which that language is expected, spokespersons and allies also employ the heated rhetoric of modern political discourse in arenas in which that language is more likely to succeed. This Part probes these, among other, contours of blood-sport rulemaking.
147 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Spending Link
Obama has enough capital now --- but he has to avoid anymore spending fights
Sink 3-26 (Justin,- staff writer for the Hill After taking hit in the polls, Obama pivots back to
immigration reform) The White House hopes to bolster President Obamas political standing by shifting attention from the bruising budget battles of the last month to immigration reform and gun control. Democrats welcome the pivot after watching Obamas standing in polls fall amid fights with Congress over the budget and the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester. They see immigration and gun reform as a better playing field for Obama that could provide political wins for the president. What the public wants to see right now is him achieving things, leading, said Tad Devine, a former strategist to Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Gore. For him, there's real opportunity on all these fronts, and realistically in the next six months, he can have progress he can bring back to the American people. On gun control, Obama will travel the country to bolster the case for strengthening background checks on gun purchases. Obama is expected to play an active role in the looming Senate fight over what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has described as the sweet spot of legislation. A poll released Friday from Quinnipiac University shows that 88 percent of respondents support an expansion of background checks on new weapons purchases. Other provisions banning straw sales and improving gun research programs and school security funding garner similarly commanding poll advantages. "There actually is a lot of strong support for the proposals that the president has put forward, whether it's universal background checks, whether it is, you know, outlawing gun trafficking or straw purchasers," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "There's even some support out there in the public for the assault weapons ban." Yet, the assault weapons ban doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate, and neither does background checks unless a bipartisan deal is reached. Immigration is a better issue for the president, partly because a growing number of Republicans want to pass a bill in the 113th Congress. While Republicans in Congress had little reason to negotiate with Obama on preventing the sequester, they do have reason to offer concessions on immigration . "Immigration reform in particular is something clearly that Latinos and the American public as a whole signaled they wanted in the last election, and Republicans ought to get on the right side of that issue," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "It doesn't seem like complicated math, and Republicans are basically deciding, do they want to be a House-based party, or do they want to be a national party that competes for the presidency and competes for the control of the Senate?" "Immigration reform in particular is something clearly that Latinos and the American public as a whole signaled they wanted in the last election, and Republicans ought to get on the right side of that issue," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "It doesn't seem like complicated math, and Republicans are basically deciding, do they want to be a House-based party, or do they want to be a national party that competes for the presidency and competes for the control of the Senate?" Moreover, immigration reform which failed in the George W. Bush administration would be Obama's most significant legislative achievement behind healthcare reform. If the administration were able to get an immigration bill that looked anything like comprehensive immigration reform after President Bush had failed on it, President Clinton had failed on it, every president back to Reagan had failed, it would be a big deal, said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. Democrats are worried that Obama hasn't had a lot of signing ceremonies in 2013 as unresolved budget battles have hit the president's approval ratings. Obama's 148 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
healthy post-election advantage on the economy has dwindled into a virtual tie with congressional Republicans. Voters equally blame Obama and the GOP for the sequester, which is expected to hit in full force in the coming weeks.
149 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Military Links
Plan has to go through Congress
TAYLOR 2011 [Hunter - staff writer, "The part of Congress where money bills originate", http://www.ehow.com/facts_5200647_part-congress-money-bills-originate.html] ttate Voters often complain that either not enough money or too much money is spent on a national level. Congress controls how the money is spent. Appropriation bills, also known as "money bills," originate from the House of Representatives. An appropriation is an act of a legislature authorizing money to be paid from the Treasury for a specified use.
Military spending causes backlash energy supercharges the link. Gholz 12. [Eugene, PhD, Associate Professor of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, senior advisor to the deputy assistant secretary
of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy, The dynamics of military innovation and the prospects for defense-led energy innovation in Energy Innovation at the Department of Defense: Assessing the Opportunities, White Paper March -http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Energy%20Innovation%20at%20DoD.pdf ] The old saw that the Army would rather plan than fight may be an exaggeration, but it holds more than a grain of truth. More
than most organizations, the U.S. military is well prepared to deal with the complexity that energy innovation will inject into its routines, and even if the logistics system seems Byzantine and inefficient, the organizational culture does not have antibodies against this aspect of energy innovation. On the other hand, investing in base infrastructure has tended to be a harder task for the military, because with a few exceptions the quality of facilities at bases is tangential to the organizations critical tasks. People may rib the Air Force for the priority attached to making sure that bases have a decent golf course, but the bases do not really suffer (or benefit) from overinvestment in what is perceived as nice to have luxuries. It is local politics and their impact on congressional votes that maintains a robust number of military bases, and the politics feed on the money that soldiers and their families spend in the community, not on paying the additional up-front cost of installing efficient or experimental energy technologies. 96
The military installations that attract the most innovative spending are the installations where the spending contributes directly to American forces combat edgebases like the National Training Center that allow for highly realistic combat exercises. Advocates
of energy innovation are unlikely to meld their pitch smoothly with that high-end organizational mission. If, instead, they pitch the energy innovations as efficiency-enhancing, they will face the fate of every other efficiency-enhancing investment that military installations could make: energy innovation will be treated as a low priority somewhere in the mix of desiderata in the budget.
150 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Delay Link
Independently Delaying the vote risks killing it. Plan doesnt even have to be unpopular ABC NEWS 3 27 13 [http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/reasons-immigrationreform-timeline-matters/story?id=18822563#.UVO80By0fzw] A group of Democrats and Republicans working on an immigration reform bill in the Senate will almost certainly miss a selfimposed March deadline to produce draft legislation. And yesterday, one of the groups foremost members, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), cautioned that a bill might not come in early April, either.
Why does the deadline matter? Here are three reasons. 1. Momentum The November presidential election -- where Obama housed Romney among Latinos, taking 71 percent of the vote -- got people in Washington talking about immigration reform as a way for the Republican party to win Latino voters. But that was five months ago, and political memory can be short. "Once the sting of the election starts to wear off a little bit, I think there's less of an impetus to act on this issue," said Marshall Fitz, immigration policy director at the liberal Center for American Progress. "You've got to act when the issue
is fresh and everyone is very cognizant of the political implications...The political implications aren't going to change as we go further into this, but the calculus of the members may start to get obscured." 2. Deportations Lots of interests groups would like to see an immigration deal inked sooner than later, but no one group feels the pressure more than immigrants who are living in the country without authorization. Even while President Obama stumps for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, his administration continues to deport record numbers of people, many of them for immigration-related offenses. A recent report in The New York Times found that on any given day, about 300 people in immigration detention are kept in solitary confinement, treatment that could have lasting psychological effects. "There is a sense that every day of delay is a day in which people continue to be deported who would otherwise be eligible for relief," Fitz said. "It's not like delay is the status quo. The delay is continued active harm on the community and on immigrant families." 3. Primaries If the so-called Senate "Gang of Eight" working on immigration reform is able to produce a bill in April, the
Senate and House could feasibly vote and pass legislation before the August recess in Congress. But any further significant delay could jeopardize that timeline. If Congress continues to negotiate the bill in the fall, some Republican members of the House facing reelection in 2014 may be less likely to give their support, fearing a primary challenger who will use the issue as a political cudgel. "I think the House leadership feels like they've got to get this done and behind them by [the August recess] because their guys are going to be unwilling to take a tough vote after that," Fitz said.
151 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Energy Policy Links

Energy policies overload the agenda.
Mann 9 Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings
(Thomas E., From Campaigning to Governing: Politics and Policymaking in the New Obama Administration)
New presidents who get off to a good start almost always have agenda control. They focus on a limited number of issues, keep extraneous matters from stepping on their priorities, and avoid overloading the circuits in Congress. Carter sent a flood of proposals to Capitol Hill with little concern for priority or sequencing. He reaped little in the way of legislative harvest from them and the public began to wonder if he was up to the job. Reagan focused relentlessly on cutting taxes and spending, ultimately succeeding in shifting policy for decades. Clinton allowed the issue of gays in the military to overwhelm his policy priorities at the outset of his administration and then misjudged the market for a small economic stimulus in the Senate and suffered a humiliating defeat. Obama identified stabilizing the financial markets and shortening the recession as his highest initial priority. His early efforts to ensure the release of $350 billion in TARP funds, pass a large economic stimulus bill, and develop a new strategy for dealing with the troubled banking system reflected that priority. Nonetheless, he was widely criticized for diluting his focus on economic crisis management by linking it to reform of health policy, energy and education. Critics argued that his economic recovery leadership and proposals were not up to the seriousness of the crisis, that the staggering costs of the recession and bailout made health, energy and education reform wildly unrealistic , and that his huge agenda would overwhelm the capacity of Congress to deliver on its central components. Obama insisted that the linkage was essential to long-term economic security and prosperity and refused to back down. At his insistence, the stimulus bill contained very generous allocations for health technology, renewable energy and education. And energy policy is a no win issue. Light 99 Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, New York University; Founding Director, Brookings Center for Public Service; Senior Adviser, National Commission on the Public Service; Senior Adviser, Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative
(Paul C., The Presidents Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3 Edition, p. 34)
rd
In the final chapter, I will take a deeper look at recent changes which have altered the domestic agenda process. The Presidency of the 1980s is quite different from the Presidency of the 1960s. The political and economic costs of domestic programs have escalated, with no corresponding increase in the President's ability to absorb the "inflation." At least five explanations arise. First, Congress has become more competitive in the search for scarce agenda spacewhether because of changes in congressional membership and norms or because of a steady growth in the institutional resources for program initiation. Second, Congress has become more complex. The evolution of subcommittee government during the late 1960s increased the sheer number of actors who wield influence in the domestic policy process and tangled the legislative road map. Though there are fewer single obstacles to passage of the President's program, there are many more potential dead ends and delays. Third, as Congress has become more competitive and complex, the congressional parties have weakened. The dispersion of congressional power has, in turn, reduced the President's potential influence over domestic legislation. As we shall see, 152 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
party is no longer the "gold standard" of presidential influence. Unfortunately, Presidents must still cling to their party as the source of their political capital. Fourth, Presidents must now conduct domestic policy under increasing congressional and media surveillance. I will suggest that this atmosphere of suspicion has reduced the opportunities for effective presidential leadership in domestic policy. Finally, and perhaps most important, the basic issues that fuel the domestic policy process have changed since 1960. We have witnessed the rise of a new group of " constituentless " issues, issues that generate remarkably little congressional support and considerable single-interest-group opposition. Energy, social-security financing, welfare reform, and hospital-cost control are all examples of a new generation of constituentless issues. Separately these five trends have created difficult problems for the President's agenda. Together they have contributed to the rise of a no- win presidency in domestic affairs. We will return to the concept of a No Win Presidency in chapter 9. For now, it is important to note that the domestic policy process continues to shift. In the few short years since Kennedy and Johnson occupied the Oval Office the Presidency has undergone a dramatic era of change. As one Johnson aide remarked, "This office is nothing like it used to be. It might look similar, but the relationships have all changed.
Cant get a win

Matthew Daly and Dina Cappiello 12, AP, Republicans, Democrats at odds on energy issues, June 13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120613/us-energy-poll-politics/ Republicans and Democrats seem to be living on different planets when it comes to how to meet U.S. energy needs. Republicans overwhelmingly push for more oil drilling. Democrats back conservation and new energy sources such as wind and solar power. A survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that the polarized positions on energy that have divided Congress and emerged in the presidential campaign also run deep among the public. While majorities in both parties say energy is an important issue, the poll shows that partisan identification is closely tied to people's perceptions of the causes of the country's energy problems and possible solutions. No other demographic factor not race, age, gender or income level is as consistently associated with opinions on energy as political party identification. For example: _Three of four Democrats surveyed report that a major reason for the county's energy problems is that industry does not do enough to support clean energy. By comparison 43 percent of the Republicans questioned believe that. _Three of four Republicans in the poll cite government limits on drilling as a major reason for energy problems, compared with 34 percent of Democrats. Also, 85 percent say it is a serious problem that the United States needs to buy energy from other countries, but there's disagreement about why. Among Republicans in the poll, 65 percent say the U.S. does not produce enough domestic energy to meet demand. Yet just over half the Democrats say people use too much energy. Even on areas where there's majority agreement, a partisan gap remains. For instance, there is broad backing for programs to help consumers learn to make more energy-efficient choices, but the support is 81 percent among Democrats and 57 percent among Republicans. Paul Bledsoe, a senior advisor with the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Clinton White House aide, said the results provide an unsettling snapshot of a partisan rift that affects every aspect of policy and politics. He said the big question is whether parties and candidates will acknowledge that they agree on a range of energy solutions and try to make progress, or keep up attacks intended to appeal to their political bases. The poll, made possible by a grant to the AP-NORC Center from the Joyce Foundation, illuminates one driver of this campaign season's divisive political rhetoric: Both parties are playing to their bases. So it's no surprise that 153 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other Republicans push for more drilling for oil and natural gas, and President Barack Obama emphasizes renewable energy development as part of what he calls an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy. Republicans also are shining a spotlight on the failure of Solyndra, a California solar company that received a half-billion dollar loan from the Obama administration and later went out of business. Just 4 in 10 Republicans support government incentive programs that give money to energy companies to help them develop alternative energy sources. Twothirds of Democrats support such programs. Overall, about six in 10 people questioned think the government should be deeply involved in finding solutions to the energy problems, with four in 10 saying the government should be "extremely" involved. By 79 percent to 42 percent, Democrats were nearly twice as likely as Republicans to think the government should be involved. About half of Democrats in the poll think government should be "extremely" involved, compared with just onequarter of Republicans. The survey showed partisans hold different ideas on how the government should be involved. Democrats are more apt to favor incentive programs for consumers or energy companies. Republicans express support for education programs aimed at consumers and allowing more drilling for oil and gas.
Adding energy to the agenda will destroy Obamas agenda POLMAN 1 18 13 News Works Staff [Dick Polman, Will Obama talk about climate change?.
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/national-interest/item/49770]
There once was a time when people invoked the weather just to make conversation. But now the substantive attention in his State of the Union policy address.
weather is deadly serious business, which is why President Obama should give it a substantive mention in his Monday Inaugural address - and But will he? I'm not holding my breath.
Climate change - the more accurate term is climate disruption - deserves to be on Obama's front burner because the factual evidence compels it. The ferocity of Hurricane Sandy was merely the worst recent manifestation of the new reality that confronts us. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States (the tabulations began in 1895). Nationwide last year, 356 high-temperature records were tied or broken. But climate disruption isn't just about heat; it's about all kinds of extremes. Nationwide, 2012 shattered more than 3,500 monthly records for heat, rain, and snow. Meanwhile, the National Climate Assessment and Developmental Advisory Committee, mandated by Congress to report on the climate every four years, is currently drafting a new report (vetted by 240 scientists). It warns: "Climate change is already affecting human health, infrastructure, water resources, agriculture, energy, the natural environment and other factors - locally, nationally, internationally....The climate change of the past 50 years is due primarily to human activities." No doubt, the loons and trolls and deniers will continue to scoff, but the fact is, even the business sector is finally sounding the alarm. Munich Re, a giant corporate reinsurance firm in Germany, concluded in a report last autumn that human-caused climate change "particularly affects formation of heat waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run, most probably, tropical cyclone activity." And care to guess where the most havoc is being wreaked? "Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America." That report was released two weeks before Sandy flooded North America's financial and media headquarters. Indeed, Sandy prompted Bloomberg Businessweek to run a cover story titled "It's Global Warming, Stupid," and to rightly warn that the economic costs of inaction are demonstrably greater than the costs of taking action.
Some environmentalists believe that a tipping point has finally occurred, and that Obama will accordingly take the lead. Ken Allen, writing recently on The Huffington Post, confidently declared that Sandy "marks the beginning of the end of climate change denial as a potent political force," and that Obama - freed
from the worries of getting re-elected - will seize the political advantage. Yeah, we'll
see about that. His track record does not inspire much confidence. Obama rarely challenged the fossil fuel industry during his first term, rarely highlighted climate change in any of his speeches, and largely went mum after cap-and-trade died in the Senate back in 2010. He didn't raise the issue in any of the presidential debates (nor was he asked about it), and he gave it only a passing mention in his triumphant speech on election night (our
kids should inherit a world "that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet").
154 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
He is indeed freed from the worries of re-election, but now he
{File Name}
has to worry about over-spending whatever political capital he has accrued from winning re-election. Climate change might be one political expense too far.
Like any second-term president, Obama
has an 18-month window to get anything done before the congressional midterms capture lawmakers' limited attention spans. The fiscal fight - which is really a proxy fight about the proper role of government will suck up a lot of oxygen, especially if (as expected) we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. Plus, Obama now has the gun fight. He didn't seek it out, but the slaughter of 20 schoolchildren has forced his hand. If not for Newtown, he'd arguably be freer to
stump nationwide about climate change, and make the compelling case that extreme weather - aided and abetted by human activity - is palpably affecting millions of lives. And Americans (reality-deniers aside) are now prepared to listen. According to an autumn report from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 83 percent say that climate change is happening, 65 percent say it's caused by human activity, and 61 percent of swing-voting independents say that Obama and Congress should do more to combat it. Clearly, most people are receptive on this issue, if only Obama is willing to lead on it.
The big question, however, is whether he has sufficient political capital to fight House Republicans on yet another front, with little chance of success and with great risk to the rest of his agenda. Climate change clearly warrants his full attention, as evidenced by the wild fluctuations in 2012 - but we may soon discover, yet again, that a policy imperative has been trumped by the art of the possible.
Obama pushing immigration ignoring energy key HARDER 2 6 13 National Journal Staff [Amy Harder, In Washington, Energy and Climate
Issues Get Shoved in the Closet, http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/power-play/in-washingtonenergy-and-climate-issues-get-shoved-in-the-closet-20130206]
At a news conference where TV cameras in the back were nearly stacked on top of each other, an
influential bipartisan group of five senators introduced legislation late last month to overhaul the nations immigration system. The room was so
crowded that no open seats or standing room could be found. A week later, one senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was standing at the podium in the same room to unveil her energy-policy blueprint. There were several open seats and just a few cameras. At least one reporter was there to ask the senator about her position on President Obamas choice for Defense secretary, former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. Im doing energy right now, Murkowski responded. Im focused on that. Almost everyone else on Capitol Hill is focused on something else. Aside from the broad fiscal issues, Congress
and the president
are galvanizing around immigration reform.

Four years ago, the White House prioritized health care reform above comprehensive climate-change legislation. The former will go down in history as one of Obamas most significant accomplishments. The latter is in the perpetual position of second fiddle. To everything, Murkowski interjected fervently when asked by National Journal Daily whether energy and climate policy was second to other policies in Washingtons pecking order. Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said she hoped the Super Bowl blackout would help the public understand the importance of energy policy. This issue of immigration: Why are we all focused on that? Well, its because the Republicans lost the election because in part we did not have the Hispanic community behind us, Murkowski said this week. What is it that brings about that motivation? Maybe it could be something like a gap in the Super Bowl causes the focus on energy that we need to have. I can only hope. It will take more than hope. Elections
have consequences, but so far the only kind of electoral consequence climate and energy policy has instigated is one that helped some lawmakers who supported cap-and-trade legislation to lose their seats in the 2010 midterm elections. For the pendulum to swing the other wayfor lawmakers to lose their seats over not acting on climate and energy policyseems almost unfathomable right now. Billions of dollars are invested in the fossil-fuel power plants, refineries, and pipelines that the country depends on today.
The companies that own this infrastructure have a business interest in keeping things the way they are. Immigration reform doesnt face such formidable interests invested in the status quo. They *businesses+ have employeesreal, visible peoplewho they value and who they want to make legal as soon as possible, said Chris Miller, who until earlier this year was the top energy and environment adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
On energy and climate-change policy, Miller added, Youre probably never going to have anything like the fence in the Southwest or the border-control issue that pushes action and debate on immigration, because climate155 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
change impacts will likely continue to be more abstract in the public's mind until those impacts are so crystal-clear its too late for us to do anything.
Another, tactical reason helps build momentum on immigration and not on other issues. Obama can capitalize on immigration as it becomes more of a wedge issue within the GOP. On energy and climate policy, Obama faces a unified Republican Party. The president has cracked the code on how to push his agenda items through. He learned from his victories on the payroll tax and the fiscal cliff that the key is to stake out the political high ground on issues that poll in his favor while exploiting the divisions within the GOP, said a former Republican leadership aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. With this in mind, the next logical place for him to go is immigration. Unlike issues like energy
or tax reform where
the GOP is united, he can claim a big win on immigration reform while striking a
political blow to Republicans.
Energy debates in this Congress drain capital Morgan Stanley 11/7/12 (Post-2012 Election Look At Lame-Duck Session and 2013
http://www.morganstanleyfa.com/public/projectfiles/697ac6e3-64d3-4f8e-a026-2c81e2149e95.pdf) With an all of the above strategy for achieving energy independence, Congress and the administration could
move forward on policy that seeks expanded domestic energy production focused on all energy related resources, from conventional
sources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, to renewable sources focused on wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects. At the same time, achieving especially regarding
consensus will remain difficult. Wide ideological differences still exist, the efficacy of focusing resources on the development of renewable versus traditional energy sources. Moreover, related issues such as the exportation of domestic energy sources, clean energy standards for utilities, and overall environmental protection will remain as obstacles to the success of any energyrelated legislative effort.
Plan insures bickering energy debates are divisive Addison 12Associate Editor of E & P Magazine [Velda, Logjam Between Congress, Administration
Hobbles Oil Policy, http://blogs.epmag.com/rebecca/2012/06/27/logjam-between-congressadministration-hobbles-oil-policy/] The continued bickering between Congress and the administration of President Barack Obama continues to be a major stumbling block for the industry. The list of industry projects and initiatives that are being undermined grows on a daily basis. These
projects include offshore leasing, the Keystone XL Pipeline, hydraulic fracturing, and exporting LNG. It would be nice, I suppose, to assume that this only happens with Democrats in the White House and Republicans in Congress. But given
how many different administrations from both parties have tried to create a national energy policy and how all of those efforts have foundered, it is obvious that partisanship continues to impact policy to the detriment of the country not just between political parties but also between regions of the country, and consumers and producers . During this administration, more than others, the partisanship seems to be much more bitter and divisive. How will the country be able to overcome such rancor? Why has it been so
hard to generate an energy policy given the importance of energy in every country?
Those are questions we may never answer, but we at least need to come close. It is interesting to watch other countries be
clear on energy policy. Perhaps being the largest energy user in the world and expecting that energy will always be there has tainted our way of looking at a policy aimed at keeping the US running.
With competition increasing for the remaining energy supplies and environmental considerations driving fuel choices, it would seem that having an energy policy would be even more important in todays world. Given our reliance on information technology and its need for energy to keep going, we may be headed for a different kind of logjam that we may not be ready to unravel. What if the power plants were idled and the computers shut down? Would that make it 156 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
important enough to finally devise an energy policy? I would be interested in hearing some solutions to this problem. We do need an energy policy, and we cant wait for an emergency to create it.
Military energy debates are divisive and cause larger energy debates-zero risk of a link turn even if the plan saves money Snider 12
(E%26E reporter, 1/16, "Pentagon still cant define energy security, much less achieve it," http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/01/16/1-http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/01/16/1)
this is not a good time to be requesting money at the Pentagon . Military budget planners have spent the past year carving nearly a half-trillion dollars in budget cuts, while top brass have worn out the thesaurus' list of synonyms for "decimate" as they decry the damage that additional looming cuts would do to their forces and weapons. At the same time, no one has
But
yet made the business case for investing in energy security.
Current rules require that renewable energy and efficiency
projects prove they will bring savings over the long run, even if they carry an added security benefit. In fact, because the Pentagon operates on a five-year budget cycle, projects that pencil out to great investments over the long term often get turned down because they register to the budget as a near-term loss. Microgrids are still in the pilot phase and the military has not yet decided what the business model will be for them. Because the technology would help energy managers use power more efficiently on a day-to-day basis, for instance by bringing unnecessary loads offline during peak demand times, some officials say microgrids may be able to create enough savings to pay for themselves. Not all of industry is convinced, though, and a group of business executives will be suggesting financial models to Robyn's office in a report this spring. Ultimately, many say the military is going to have to decide what "secure energy" is worth to it if it wants to fix its vulnerabilities. "Until
someone establishes the value of energy security, I only have the business case to rely on, because right now the value of energy security is apparently zero," said Dan Nolan, a retired Army colonel who writes
a defense energy blog. The Navy has made a rough attempt to do this for its Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va. Like many military installations, the base sits at the end of the power line. Last year it lost electricity 11 times. Capt. Kenneth Branch, the commander for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, estimates that the two days the center was without power during Hurricane Irene this summer cost it $60,000. "That's just lost industrial productivity," he said, noting that the numbers helped him justify infrastructure investments. "I also spend a lot of money on my labor trying to figure what were the problems and get back up and online." A fuller accounting could also count the costs associated with backup generators, including labor required for maintenance, the price of buying and transporting fuel, and the risk of failure. Pentagon officials say they are beginning to think through some of these calculations, but nobody is sure yet whether extra money would follow. "If the military is really serious about this, are we going to have to spend some dedicated funds on energy security?" the Army's Kidd said. "I don't know the answer to that, but I think those are the questions we need to start to ask." Looking to Congress Ultimately, the
answers to those questions will come from Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been bitterly divided on energy policy. Indeed, a military energy issue that has become a symbol of the larger energy policy debate was one of the final points to be resolved in last month's congressional budget deal. Republicans
mounted an effort to exempt the military from a 2007 ban on purchasing fuels like liquefied coal that have a higher greenhouse gas content than traditional petroleum, but in the end they acquiesced, leaving the ban intact.
GOP frames energy shifts as forcing additional spending cuts in other areas Davenport 12. [Coral, energy reporter, "Obama Faces Tough Challenge in Virginia Over Energy" National Journal -- July 13 -http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-faces-tough-challenge-in-virginia-over-energy-20120713] But even here, Republicans including the Romney campaign have
criticized Navy contracts to purchase biofuels that are more expensive than traditional fuels as the Pentagon prepares for spending cuts. Speaking on Thursday to reporters on behalf of the Romney campaign, Former Navy Secretary John Lehman said, If the president wants the taxpayer to subsidize alternative fuels, it shouldnt be done on the Navys back.
Obama cant win on energy policy Eisler 12 (Matthew N. Eisler, Research Fellow at the Center for Contemporary History and Policy at the
Chemical Heritage Foundation, Science, Silver Buckshot, and All of The Above Science Progress, April 2, http://scienceprogress.org/2012/04/science-silver-buckshot-and-%E2%80%9Call-of-theabove%E2%80%9D/, CR)
157 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Conservatives take President Obamas rhetoric at face value. Progressives see the president as disingenuous. No doubt White House planners regard delaying the trans-border section of the Keystone XL pipeline and approving the Gulf of Mexico portion as a stroke of savvy realpolitik, but one has to wonder whether Democratic-leaning voters really are as gullible as
this scheme implies. And as for the presidents claims that gasoline prices are determined by forces beyond the governments control (speculation and unrest in the Middle East), it is probably not beyond the capacity of even the mildly educated to understand that the
administration has shown little appetite to reregulate Wall Street and has done its part to inflate the fear premium through confrontational policies in the Persian Gulf. Committed both to alternative energy (but not in a rational, comprehensive way) and cheap fossil fuels (but not in ways benefiting American motorists in an election year), President Obama has accrued no political capital from his energy policy from either the left or the right by the end of his first term. The president long ago lost the legislative capacity for bold action in practically every field, including energy, but because the GOPs slate of presidential candidates is so extraordinarily weak in 2012, he may not need it to get re-elected. At least, that is the conventional wisdom in Democratic circles. Should President Obama win a second term, Congress is likely to be even more hostile than in his first term, as in the Clinton years. And as in the Clinton years, that will probably mean four more years of inaction and increased resort to cant.
158 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Renewable Energy Links

Renewable energies spark massive congressional backlash. Macneil 12Professor at the University of Sydney [Robert, Alternative climate policy pathways in the
US, Climate Policy, Volume No. 10 Sep 2012] The election of Barack Obama in November 2008 to the Presidency of the US (along with strengthened majorities in both its House and Senate) led many in both the mainstream and academia to cautiously speculate that perhaps the country's hitherto woeful performance on climate-related issues might finally take a turn for the better (e.g. Bomberg and Super, 2009; Matisoff, 2010).1 Indeed, even those analysts who were rather skeptical of the ability of the
US to play a leading role in the international climate change negotiations after 2008 emphasized the likelihood that, at the very least, Washington would pass a comprehensive domestic programme featuring the country's most important contribution to contemporary climate policy: a national market for GHG emissions trading (e.g. Paterson, 2009). As with all the serious contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama had campaigned for the need to enact comprehensive climate legislation. A mere 5 weeks into his first term, he had already requested, in a speech before a joint session of Congress, that a system-wide bill be delivered to him to sign as soon as possible. With
large Democratic majorities in both houses, it appeared that the US was indeed all but certain to finally turn over a new leaf on climate and establish the type of emissions trading market that it had sold to the rest of the world a decade earlier at Kyoto. Yet, even the most ostensibly advantageous and progressive legislative dynamic in a quarter of a century proved fruitless, as the famed Senate sister bill
of WaxmanMarkey (formally known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454)the Kerry-Boxer Bill (formally known as the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009, S. 1733)promptly Economist, 2010) barely
died in the upper chamber with (as noted in
the bathos of a whimper . Soon after the Republican-dominated 112th House of Representatives rose to power in January 2011, the President stated publicly that such a bill would be unlikely to win passage until 2013 at the earliest. While the factors that led to the death of the bill are often described in fairly idiosyncratic termstypically blamed on the Democrats relative lack of political capital following the debates over healthcare, the stimulus bill, and the auto sector bailout, for example (see Pooley, 2010)the actual root causes are considerably more structural and complex and stem, inter alia, from the broad nature of energy production and
consumption in the US, the
emergence of environmentalism as an intensely partisan wedge issue over the past three decades, the nature of the Democratic Party's contemporary electoral coalition, and the uniquely prohibitive nature of the legislative process in Washington. From this perspective (to be further discussed below), the US administration's request that such a programme be passed legislatively looks like a fool's errand (or, at least, an extremely optimistic view of the legislative situation), with an exceptionally low probability of success.
Their link turns are uselesshurting traditional fossil fuels guarantees the link to politicsregional, party dynamics. Even if some are happy with the plan, the majority will be furious across the spectrum of politics Macneil 12University of Sydney [Robert Macneil, Alternative climate policy pathways in the US,
Climate Policy, Volume No. 10 Sep 2012]
3. US energy production, consumption, and legislation
When assessing the prospects of any type of comprehensive national policy in the US, one ever-present factor is the potential for inter-regional conflict among the country's half-dozen or so distinct regions. As Lee (2001) notes,
the history of national policy in the US has been one of heated regional battles over the direction of legislation, and relatively small regions with particular vested interests have often gained control over specific issue areas. While managing
such battles has remained a difficult task even for relatively simple issues, the remarkably broad distribution of fossil energy resources across the US mainland has made climate policy a uniquely complicated endeavour . With four states responsible for producing the lion's share of the country's oil and gas supplies (Louisiana, Alaska, Texas, and 159 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
California7), eight
{File Name}
Pennsylvania, Utah, Texas, and Arkansas8), and
responsible for the majority of natural gas production (Colorado, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, another 15 responsible for the country's coal supply (see Table 1), attempts to regulate and reform US energy production have been perceived as tantamount to an
assault on the economies and employment bases of more than 20 states . Although consumer states outnumber producer states by a decent ratio, representatives from producer states in Congress are dramatically overrepresented in the Senate (the producer states alone have enough senators to seriously inhibit any form of climate regulation) and, historically, have managed to establish themselves on important committees with jurisdiction over energy and natural resource policy (Lee et al., 2001). This regional over-representation has had the effect of pushing Congress to support policies that have been aimed at supporting conventional energy (both to increase demand and bring down energy and gasoline prices in the short term) as well as to remain timid on issues such as climate and longterm energy security (e.g. Tomain, 2010). The zeal with which producing states have guarded against changes to the country's energy policy has been compounded by the history of US energy consumption. Indeed, there are deeply entrenched structural differences in the US mode of energy use that render the goal of decarbonization comparatively more difficult than in other parts of the Western world. Thus, policies that aim at achieving decarbonization are
potentially more onerous to voters. In contrast to Western Europe's project of ecological modernization, the Anglo-American world has embraced carboniferous capitalism (Dalby and Paterson, 2008). Whereas development of the former has typically involved highly dense settlement areas (which started as walking cities and have become increasingly dense with the advent of steel-framed architecture), the latter's dominant settlement pattern began with late-19th-century saucer cities and, later, post-war suburbanization and excessive land development, all of which have proceeded on the presumption of ever-cheap and ever-abundant fossil fuel resources (see also Nivola, 2010). The result of these divergent development patterns is two rather distinct models of energy use and economic development, and therefore two very different structural starting points for climate regulation. With
more than 50% of the US population residing in suburban areas and another 20% in rural areas, a natural or artificial rise in the cost of energy would have considerably greater negative impacts on US industry and lifestyles compared with other parts of the West.9 This obviously has important implications for the perceived legitimacy (or lack thereof) of policy makers who wish to raise the price of fossil energy for a public that is dependent on its cheap availability. This has lent a great deal of credibility to often exaggerated studies by right-wing think tanks, which have highlighted the supposedly harmful economic impacts of climate legislation,
particularly on individuals and families.10 In relation to the legislative process itself, it is worth noting thatwith the brief exception of the Depression and post-war erasthe legislative process in Washington has historically been uniquely ill-equipped to execute formal comprehensive regulatory packages such as a system-wide climate bill. Indeed, with a federal governmental structure carefully designed to guard against the acquisition of excessive centralized power (complete with a disaggregated executive and legislative branch and a series of prohibitive checks and balances that require either exceptional cooperation or a series of lopsided electoral victories to pass major legislation), the proposition of a comprehensive climate bill implies a legislative gauntlet that has little parallel elsewhere in the West.
The first and most obvious element of passing a bill is successfully moving it through the House and Senate11. However, this is a considerably more complicated process today than it has been at most points in US history. The consolidation of the major parties contemporary coalitions over the past 30 years has ushered in an era of partisan gridlock, largely unknown in recent US history, which has proved to be a particular anathema to progressive state-building.12 As Hacker and Pierson (2006) note, while the first 200 years of US
legislative politics were (with obvious exceptions) characterized by loose, interchangeable coalitions that generally traversed geography and lacked fixed identities, the
modern crystallization of liberal and conservative coalitions (based on rigid values and identities) has led to the emergence of highly ideological, lock-step party disciplines in Congress. Although these
are reminiscent of European-style parliamentary democracies, they lack the historical tendency towards mixed coalition building that lies at the heart of multi-party parliamentary systems.
Climate legislation has predictably evolved along these broad partisan battle lines, but specific changes in the organizational structures of the two major parties over the past three decades have had uniquely prohibitive knock-on implications for environmental policy. Whereas the golden age13 of American
environmentalism saw a tidal wave of regulatory measures passed with relative bipartisan support, the extensive redrawing of the federal electoral map throughout the 1980s served to render environmental policy a particularly intractable wedge issue. Among
the most crucial elements of this shift has been the southern realignment, which began in the 1980s: the Democrats consolidated a more homogeneously liberal base in the Northeast, parts of the Midwest, and the West Coast and began to 160 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
cede control over their century-old solid south base to the Grand Old Party (GOP), as the Republican Party engaged in a near-wholesale takeover of the South, Rocky Mountain west, and Farmbelt (Campbell, 2007).
The South's shift towards the GOP during this period has been of particular importance in relation to the climate and the environment for at least two reasons. First, while the Republican Party has shifted towards a broadly
antiregulation platform, this broad anti-state philosophy has interactedin a particularly detrimental waywith the South's specific historical position on environmental issues. As Klyza and Sousa (2008) have noted, although the US public has tended to claim a broad sympathy for environmental issues (despite rarely supporting them electorally; see Guber, 2003), southerners, by and large, have
displayed much more antipathy in opinion polls towards such issues.14 Much the same can be said of the citizens of the Rocky Mountain
west and Appalachia regions, which, from 1980, have also increasingly embraced the Republican Party. As a result, over the past three decades, while the antiregulation philosophy of the GOP has broadly influenced the South's position on regulation, the
South, in turn, has influenced the party's specific position on the environment. With this dynamic in place (and with the party's leadership largely dominated by individuals from these regions), GOP opposition to environmental regulation has become increasingly aggressive over the past 30 years. This has been compounded further and accelerated by the massive purge of
the party's moderate wing across much of the country (and its near total disappearance in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast), which has led to an extremely narrow internal debate on environmental issues. The issue of climate change, with its potential to incite broad state regulation over massive swaths of the economy and curtail certain personal freedoms, has led to a particularly strong form of reactionary indignation from the Republican Party, effectively constituting an affront to its entire contemporary politicaleconomic philosophy.
161 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Link Reduction in Environmental Regulations

Reducing environmental regulations triggers massive Congressional battles and requires PC expenditure Kraft and Vig 10 Michael Kraft is a Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs @ UWisconsinGreen Bay. Norman J. Vig is Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Emeritus, at Carleton College. Environmental Policy over Four Decades, CQPress, http://www.cqpress.com/docs/college/Ch1-kraft-vig.pdf
Despite these notable pledges and actions, rising criticism of environmental programs also was evident throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century both domestically and internationally. So too were a multiplicity of efforts to chart new policy directions. For instance, intense opposition to environmental and natural resource policies arose in the 104th Congress (1995 1997), when the Republican Party took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in forty years. Ultimately, much like the earlier effort in R onald Reagans
the antiregulatory campaign on Capitol Hill failed to gain much public support pitched battles over environmental and energy policy continued in every Congress through the 110th and they were evident as the Bush White House sought to rewrite environmental rules and regulations to favor industry and to dramatically increase development of U.S. oil and natural gas supplies on public lands.
administration, . 2 Nonetheless, (20072009), equally in the executive branch 3 Yet growing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of environmental policies was by no means confin ed to congressional conservatives and the Bush administration. It could be found among a broad array of interests, including the business community, environmental policy analysts, environmental justice groups, and state and local government officials. 4 Since 1992, governments at all levels have struggled to redesign environmental policy for the twenty-first century. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and GeorgeW. Bush, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to reinvent environmental r egulation through the use of collaborative decision making involving multiple stakeholders, public-private partnerships, market-based incentives, information disclosure, and enhanced flexibility in rulemaking and enforcement (see chapters 7, 9, and 10). 5 Particularly during the Clinton administration, new emphases within the EPA and other federal agencies and departments on ecosystem management and sustainable dev elopment sought to foster comprehensive, integrated, and long-term strategies for environmental protection and natural resource management (see chapter 8). 6 Many state and local governments have pursued similar goals, with adoption of a wide range of innovative policies that promise to address some of the most important criticisms directed at contemporary environmental policy (see chapters 2 and 11). The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 signaled the likelihood of even greater attention to innovative policy ideas in the years ahead as the nation demonstrated a new sense of urgency about climate change and a determination to address a range of environmental, energy, and resource challenges despite a poor economy. The precise way in which Congress, the states, and local governments will change environmental policies remains unclear. The
policy change rarely comes easily in the U.S. political system. Its success will likely depend on how policy actors stake out and defend their positions Political leadership, , will play a role, especially in reconciling deep divisions between the major political parties on environmental protection and natural resource issues. Political conflict over the environment is not going to vanish any time soon. it will likely increase as the United States and other nations struggle to define how they will respond to the latest generation of environmental problems
partisan gridlock of the past decade may give way to greater consensus on the need to act. Yet several key conditions: public support for change, the various on the issues, the way the media cover these disputes, the relative influence of opposing interests, and the state of the economy. as always Indeed, 1970s, their achievements to date, and the need for policy redesign and priority setting for the years ahead. The chapters that follow address in greater detail many of the questions explored in this introduction. The Role of Government and Politics The
. In this chapter we examine the continuities and changes in environmental politics and
policy since 1970 and discuss their implications for the early twenty-first century. We review the policymaking process in the United States, and we assess the performance of government institutions and political leadership. We give special attention to the major programs adopted in the
high levels of political conflict over environmental protection efforts during recent years underscores the important role government plays in devising solutions
to the nations and the worlds mounting environmental ills. Global climate change, population growth, the spread of toxic an d hazardous chemicals, loss of biological diversity, and air and water pollution all require diverse actions by individuals and institutions at all levels of society and in bo th the public and private sectors. These actions range from scientific research and technological innovation to improved environmental education and significant changes in corporate and consumer behavior. As political scientists we believe government has an indispensable role to play in environmental protection and improvement. The chapters in this volume thus focus on environme ntal policies and the government institutions and political processes that affect them. Our goal is to illuminate that role and to suggest needed changes and strategies.
162 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Plan Popular

And well win a few shielding issues A. Just because an issue is popular with someone doesnt mean it be net popular our link proves the plan still causes a fight due to ______. B. Media spin means only the bad parts will be discussed Grunwald 8/14/12Senior Nat'l Correspondent for Time [Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_ argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.2.html]
That said, the national media should have tried to look past that, but it didnt, because the
national media sucks at covering public policy. The stimulus included $27 billion to computerize our pen-and-paper health care system, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions, and fatalities caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. It doubled our renewable power generation; it increased solar installations over 600 percent; it essentially launched our transition to a low-carbon
economy. It provided a new model for government spendingwith unprecedented transparency, unprecedented scrutiny, and unprecedented competition for the cash. Experts predicted that as much as 5 percent of it would be lost to fraud, but so far, investigators have documented less than $10 million in losses, about 0.001 percent. Despite all the controversy over the lack of shovel-ready projects, the Obama administration has met
every spending deadline, and its kept costs so far under budget that its been able to finance over 3,000 additional projects with the savings. But the media coverage of the stimulus was almost exclusively gotcha stuff, usually without a real gotcha. And when the media did notice long-term investments in the stimulus, like Race to the Top or clean-energy research, it rarely mentioned the stimulus connection. Except, of course, when it was noticing Solyndra. After a year of screaming headlines about crony capitalism and shady deals, even Republican investigators have admitted theres no evidence of any political interference or other wrongdoing. A slew of independent reviewsincluding one led by John McCains finance chairmanhave concluded that the clean-energy loan program is working well. Everyone knew that some of its loans would go bad. But the Solyndra scandalwhich isnt even a scandalis probably the best-known product of the stimulus.
163 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Bipartisan/Doesnt Spend $

EVEN IF the plan doesnt cost money and is generally bipartisan it drains capital McEntee 12 (Christine McEntee Executive Director and CEO, American Geophysical Union Science,
Politics and Public Opinion http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spotbiparti.php) We know that objective scientific knowledge is needed to inform good policy decisions and that objective knowledge exists but all too often we are allowing politics and ideology to take precedence over, or be pitted against, science. This
not only risks the legitimacy of the science, but also the strength of the policy and its ability to protect the security, health and welfare of the American people, and support a healthy and thriving economy. The current rhetoric on climate change is a perfect example. We also know that the biggest obstacles to passage of energy and environmental legislation are disagreements about the extent to which the federal government can and should regulate business, and reluctance to launch new initiatives that will add to the deficit. The science tells us that small initiatives that require only nominal investments can't begin to address the environmental and energy challenges we face; and legislation
big enough to achieve significant results will cost more than Congress is willing to spend. Environmental legislation is also held prisoner to partisan gridlock , with far less bipartisan support than many energy proposals . Even environmental legislation that saves many times its cost in medical and health care savings cannot advance
in the current Congress. One recent example is the defeat of legislation to limit the release of airborne particulates proven to adversely affect the respiratory health of children and seniors. Dissonance about the role of federal regulation, its cost-effectiveness, and potential to impose costs on private
sector that might adversely impact economic recovery further complicate energy/environmental legislative calculus. For these reasons, it is difficult for Congress to pass new energy and/or environmental initiatives, even where there is wide bipartisan support for a given bill.
164 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Internal Links
165 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Reform Includes STEM Workers

Obamas reform bill solves STEM workers. Migration Expert 1-22-13.
www.migrationexpert.com/visa/us_immigration_news/2013/Jan/0/679/obama_calls_for_u.s._highly_skilled_immigration_reform The freshly reelected President Barack Obama
in his inaugural address on January 21, 2013 called for U.S. immigration reform, particularly changes in legislation to facilitate immigrants with well education and high skills in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, also known as STEM. In his previous Presidential term, Obama advocated for highskilled immigration reform. There were some bills raised by House Republicans as well as Democrats in the Senate and House on the STEM visa issues, but efforts to pass these changes were tangled up in large immigration debates. In his inaugural address at the United States Capitol on Monday, the
President continued to call for comprehensive immigration reform, highlighting that passing immigration legislation would be a policy priority during his second term. Coming immigration legislation is expected to include a measure that will boost the number of U.S. visas available to overseas graduates of U.S. universities with master's degrees and Ph.D in STEM fields. According to Obama,
overseas engineers and graduates with advanced degrees should be able to live and work in the U.S. rather than be forced to return to their home countries. "Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country," said Obama. The idea
of bringing more highly skilled immigrants into the U.S. will be beneficial to the country's economy, according to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). It is expected to help technology companies attract foreign-born applicants with high skills, especially tech giants such as Microsoft and Intel, amid arguments that these
companies find it difficult to fill positions because most applicants don't have the requisite skills.
Immigration reform key to STEM leadership and biotech innovation Scullion 13 (Christine, Manufacturers Take the Lead In STEM Education, January 8,
http://www.shopfloor.org/2013/01/manufacturers-take-the-lead-in-stem-education/27254, CMR) The U.S. the leading producer of cutting-edge products
Whether its such as those on display at the Consumer Electronics Show.
in IT, biotech , aerospace, medical devices or heavy machinery, US companies will be the ones to
constantly and consistently create new and better things. This future promises to be bright, but only if we have the workforce capable of pushing that leading-edge . And right now, that doesnt look like a very good bet. The lack of a skilled workforce is a constant threat to manufacturing growth. In fact in a recent survey 82% of manufacturers reported a moderate-to-serious shortage in skilled production labor. Worker shortages abound not only among machinists and welders but also in occupations requiring expertise in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), where the unemployment rate today lies well below 4%. The US needs to refocus our workforce training resources and reform our immigration system to continue to grow and innovate. Immigration reform is a serious issue for Manufacturers not only in the High-tech arena but across manufacturing sectors. Without a skilled workforce from the PhDs to production labor, the nations economy will suffer and jobs will be moved overseas. Access to the right individual with the right skills at the right time will ensure that the US remains a global innovation leader.
166 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Skilled Workers Will Inevitable Get In
167 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Skilled workers tied to comprehensive reform, wont be addressed separately Higgins 2/6 (John K. Higgins is a career business writer, with broad experience for a major publisher in
a wide range of topics including energy, finance, environment and government policy, Immigration Reform Could Open the Door for IT Talent, http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/77241.html, CR)
Congressional Hurdles and Outlook How
the bill fares in Congress may depend on how an overall
comprehensive package of immigration reforms is handled. "The Immigration Innovation Act could stand on its own,
but in the
current political situation it is unlikely that immigration issues will be handled piecemeal," Bob Sakaniwa, associate director of advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the E-Commerce Times. "The better prospect is that it will be included within a comprehensive package and its fate will be tied to what Congress does on the overall immigration reform effort." The history of congressional immigration debates also indicates that the IT issue should be part of a comprehensive reform effort, LeDuc added. "As much as we might like, or it might seem practical to enact various reform initiatives independently, that's not a political reality at this time ." The momentum now exists for comprehensive immigration reform, and issues related to highly skilled workers have already made their way into bipartisan legislative language. "We know that the attention of Congress will now be fully focused on achieving comprehensive reform and a complete bill in the next few months," Coffey said. "We're hoping that they succeed, and that's where our focus is."
Nope Democrats wont sign-off on piecemeal reform Song 2/5 (Kyung, Immigration committee examines skilled versus unskilled workers,
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020294802_immigrationhearingxml.html, CR)
WASHINGTON Members of the House Judiciary Committee showed
a sharp partisan divide during a hearing on immigration Tuesday that sometimes seemed to pit high-skilled foreign workers against illegal immigrants and those admitted to the U.S. through family ties. A big portion of the hearing the first on immigration this year focused
on temporary H-1B visas for science and technology workers. Citing a shortage of qualified American engineers and programmers, Microsoft has been leading aggressive lobbying efforts to lift the cap on such foreign hires as well as for green cards allowing them to stay permanently. Many members of the panel expressed strong support
for creating more slots for high-tech talent. But Democrats largely swatted down Republicans suggestions to tackle that issue separately from possible
citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and other thornier aspects of comprehensive immigration reform being debated in Congress.
168 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Too Watered Down

Final bill will still have H1-B, path to citizenship and solve the economy
Chichoni 3-25 (Hector,- chair of Duane Morris LLPs Immigration Practice, represents corporate and
individual clients, including healthcare organizations, Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations and universities, doctors, professors, researchers and students ) A wide variety of industries, hospitality, construction, retail, information technology, agriculture, meatpacking, healthcare, and others will benefit greatly from these proposals. Summary/Compilation of Proposals: The AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce have agreed to a general framework that would add up to 200,000 new visas per year for a new guest worker program for foreigners. A dispute over wages for low-income foreign workers is holding up final agreement on a comprehensive immigration proposal being developed by a bipartisan Senate group (the Gang of 8). The number of visas would fluctuate based on recommendations by a new federal bureau charged with analyzing employment data and employer needs. The foreign workers would be able to switch jobs on their temporary visas and some would be granted a chance to pursue permanent residency and, potentially, citizenship under certain conditions. The Chamber has pushed for the workers who would include maids, waiters, child care workers, home nannies and meat packer to be paidH one step below the median hourly wage scale in their respective industries. But the labor union wants them to be paid one step higher than the median. In the case of a waiter, for example, the difference would be between $8.93 per hour (or $18,600 a year) and $10.61 per hour ($22,100), according to the sources. Union officials are concerned that paying foreigners lower wages could drive down median wages for all employees. The bipartisan Senate group, which includes four Democrats and four Republicans, hopes to finish negotiations Friday, which would allow aides to write the legislative bill over the two-week Easter break. The bill would be unveiled after the Senate resumes work April 8, senators said. An expanded guest worker program is among the major new components in the Senate groups bill, which is expected to be a template for a possible deal between Congress and the White House. Other likely components are a path to citizenship for the nations 11 million illegal immigrants, reductions to some categories of family visas, increases in visas for high-tech workers and increased border control and work-place security. The bipartisan group of senators is nearing agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would put illegal immigrants on a 13-year path to citizenship. The legislation also would install new criteria for border security, allow more high- and low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. and hold businesses to tougher standards on verifying their workers are in the country legally, according to outside groups and lawmakers involved. Together, the measures represent the most sweeping changes in immigration law in decades. The new bill would contemplate a 10-year wait for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. before they could get a green card allowing them permanent residency, senators have said. During that time they would be in a provisional legal status and would not have to return to their home countries as current law requires. Once they got the green card, they would have to wait three years to be able to apply for citizenship, compared to the five-year wait that most green-card holders currently have to abide, outside officials say they've been told. The new three-year wait was first reported by The New York Times. That added up to 13 years, which would put the Senate bill in line with immigration legislation drafted by President Barack Obama, which he has said he would offer only if the Gang of Eight process stalls. The senators in the so-called Gang of Eight were meeting for hours at a time daily last week trying to complete a deal. There were still big disagreements on some issues, but they hoped to resolve most of them before Congress began a two-week recess at weeks end. That would allow them to meet a self-imposed deadline to present their legislation next month. Theres also said to be substantial consensus among the senators on border security issues. The bill would require that the 169 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
border be secured before illegal immigrants could embark on the path to citizenship and would put in place new border security criteria including a commission of border state officials to advise on the issue. The border security piece was critical to support from Republicans in the group including John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida. The bill will be lengthy and cover numerous other thorny issues, including mandating a currently voluntary program called E-Verify that helps businesses check their workers papers, as much as doubling visas that go to high-tech workers, and limiting family-based immigration to put a greater emphasis on skills and employment ties instead.
170 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Political Capital Key to Immigration Reform

Capital is key
Nakamura 3-1 (David,- staff writer for the Washington Post Obama to refocus attention on
immigration, gun control 3-1) For a president who has bemoaned Washingtons penchant for lurching between self-manufactured political crises over the past two years, the inability to compromise with Republicans appeared to leave him simultaneously exasperated and emboldened. Though he had run out of ideas on how to get Congress to support his plan on taxes and spending What more do you think I should do? he asked a reporter Obama sounded an upbeat note on other initiatives, including raising the minimum wage, expanding preschool programs and changing voting laws. There are other areas where we can make progress, he said. This is the agenda that the American people voted for. These are Americas priorities. Theyre too important to go unaddressed. The presidents tone came as a relief to advocates who have fretted that the ongoing fight over the deficit would drain attention and critical momentum from Obamas promise to champion reforms to gun control and immigration laws. Though Obama touched on both during his State of the Union address Feb. 12, the last event he dedicated solely to gun control was a Feb. 4 appearance at a Minneapolis police station, and on immigration it was a Jan. 29 speech at a Las Vegas high school. In the meantime, the administration has tried to remain engaged via less high-profile means . Vice President Biden made policy speeches and met with advocates on gun control, and Obama used phone calls to Capitol Hill and a private Oval Office meeting with two Republican senators to push quietly on immigration. There are plenty of issues Congress needs to be getting to, said David Leopold, an executive committee member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Manufactured crises like the fiscal cliff or sequester do not advance anyones agenda, least of all the American peoples agenda. Advocates acknowledged that the White Houses decision to focus on the economy made sense in light of polls showing Americans overwhelmingly believe that jobs and growth should be Obamas top priority. But they have learned from experience that momentum for their causes can disappear quickly. Obama promised comprehensive immigration reform in his first term but pursued a major health-care overhaul that ate up his political capital and the administrations attention . He gave a much-heralded speech about gun violence after the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in January 2011 that wounded former representative Gabby Giffords (D), but no changes to gun laws followed.
Political capital is key to winning over House Republicans.

NY Times, 2-4-2013, p. www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/opinion/keller-sellingamnesty.html?pagewanted=print
Lets assume that President Obama and the Democrats sincerely want an immigration bill, that this is not a trick to trap Republicans into an anti-immigrant vote that will alienate Hispanic voters and secure Democratic advantage for a generation. The Senate seems to be hospitable territory. Four Republicans including the ascendant Marco Rubio have joined four Democrats in embracing the politically difficult principles at the heart of the matter. Some advocates of immigration reform talk confidently of mustering 70 Senate votes, which would represent an astonishing reversal of fortunes for an issue that has long been mired in demagogy. The House, where many Republicans fear getting creamed by Tea Party challengers in a primary next year, is more problematic. The fear is that the House will balk or will break immigration into little pieces, pass the parts that crack down on undocumented workers and kill any effort to legalize the 11 million already here.
That pessimism is natural; the House is the place where ideas go to die. But it neednt happen this time . If President Obama and Congressional leaders play their cards right , as they are doing so far, immigration reform real immigration reform can clear Congress this year. Selling
171 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
the measure to the Republican House will require close attention to substance, marketing and legislative tactics .
Capital is the lynchpin has enough now THE ATLANTIC 2 21 13 [There's Reason to Be Optimistic About CongressSeriously,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/theres-reason-to-be-optimistic-about-congressseriously/273393/]
Nevertheless, this is a new congressional session, and Boren's pessimism
might possibly be proved wrong. For the first time in a decade, if not longer, conditions are aligned for bipartisan deal-making , raising hopes that Congress might actually do something and satisfy the wishes of millions of Americans hungry for action. "I am pleased with the signs I see in Congress today to try to make deals," said Lee Hamilton, who was a veteran Democratic House member from Indiana. "There are threads of it -- it's not a fabric yet -- but there are threads, and that's encouraging."
In today's context, defining success is important -- and requires a healthy dose of both skepticism and pragmatism. There's little hope that this Congress can reverse the -- exacerbated by, among other things, powerful special interests and partisan media -- that has gripped Washington. The forces that drove Rep. Boren out of Congress remain potent, and the Instead of a long-term course correction, the
legislative atmosphere on Capitol Hill is still toxic. question is whether Republican leaders in the House, President Obama, and Senate Democrats can facilitate a reprieve -- if only to show the public that the institution is still functional. Cutting a deal with the broad backing of both parties isn't a question so much of relieving those pressures as of learning to pass laws in spite of them.
Favorable Conditions
The makeup of the 113th Congress and the occupant of the White House make conditions riper for bipartisan
legislation than at any time since President George W. Bush's first years in office. Since then, Washington has been in the grip of one of two dynamics: Either one party has held Congress and the presidency, or one party, possessing limited power, has had little interest in passing consequential legislation. The latter was the case last session, when Republicans controlled only the House. In most cases, they used this chamber to approve legislation, such as Rep. Paul Ryan's eponymous budget, that helped define the party's agenda but had no chance of gaining approval in the Senate (much less withstanding a veto from the White House). They were trying to wait out a president whom they believed would be sent packing in 2013. Democrats were in a similar position from 2007 to 2009, when they controlled Congress but wanted to wait out Bush's tenure. The lack of bipartisanship, of course, didn't prevent major legislation from becoming law over the past 10 years. But when Democrats controlled Washington and passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, or similarly empowered Republicans approved Medicare Part D in 2003, they didn't need the backing of the other party -- and by and large didn't get it. This session is different. Neither
party has unilateral control, and yet there is an appetite, in the first year of Obama's
second term, to make a serious attempt to legislate. The last time Capitol Hill saw something similar came in 2001 and 2002. Republicans suddenly lost the Senate when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont defected from the GOP in the early summer, but Congress still overwhelmingly approved the No Child Left Behind Act months later (although the first round of Bush's tax cuts passed with only a dozen or so Democrats on board in each chamber). Later, the parties worked together to approve a slew of national security issues after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But drawing comparisons to that period is difficult because of 9/11; and, besides, most of Bush's term is hardly associated with bipartisan comity. The better parallel -- and the experience current optimists point to -- is 1996 and 1997, which bridges the end of President Clinton's first term and the beginning of his second. That two-year span saw agreements on a series of important issues, ranging from two big-ticket items (welfare reform and a balanced-budget agreement) to lesser-known achievements (such as raising the minimum wage). The similarity between that period and now extends beyond the split control of government. Only a year earlier, Republicans had ridden the "revolution" of 1994 into control of Congress, when they promised to push their agenda whether Clinton approved or not. But the party ultimately dealt with political setbacks, none more damaging than the government shutdown of 1996. The public blamed Republicans, and afterward Clinton never again trailed GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole (who was Senate majority leader at the time of the shutdown) in a head-to-head matchup, according to preelection polls. Boehner's Challenge Public opinion might once again be pulling against Republicans, burnt as they were by Obama's reelection and their unexpected losses in the Senate. In a January poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 49 percent of adults disapproved of the GOP -- and only 26 percent approved. It was the worst rating for Republicans since 2008. Just
as the Republicans in Clinton's time decided their political survival depended on coming to the table, the GOP of today might do the same. "Republicans overplayed the
government shutdown, and President Clinton won that battle," said Dan Glickman, a former House member who was Clinton's Agriculture secretary. "And, with that, he effectively used the bully pulpit to control the agenda. He gave a lot of cover for people to vote for him. It's not
172 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
the only factor, but members of Congress are much [more] likely to support a president when the people at home are inclined to support the president."
How much Obama's broad popularity matters to most GOP House members is debatable. With many of the
president's supporters packed into heavily Democratic urban districts, most Republicans represent safely red districts. (In November, Mitt Romney won 227 congressional districts, a majority, despite losing by 4 percentage points in the national vote.)
But Obama's standing could weigh

parochial, they
more heavily
on House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor
than on their followers; Cantor has recently attempted to rebrand the party with a softer image. While their charges' interests are more
have the national party's image to worry about. Popular opinion could prod the two leaders
to reach agreements with Obama, especially on emotional issues such as gun control and immigration . Or,
at the very least, public pressure could work to ease the disagreements that make even basic government action difficult -- a factor that might have been at work when House Republicans engineered a three-month delay of the debt ceiling. "They're hearing the message outside the Beltway that 'we elected you people to make things work,'" said John Breaux, the former longtime Democratic senator from Louisiana.
The onus falls particularly hard on Boehner, whose struggles to control his conference are well documented. More than any
other player in Washington, he will determine whether anything gets done this year. How he decides to proceed could rest on how frequently he's willing to leave conservative colleagues out in the cold and, consequently, how far he's willing to risk his speakership. The good of the party, and not his seat of power, propelled Boehner's decision to bring the superstorm Sandy relief bill to a vote earlier this year, when it passed with just a minority of support from Republicans. That combination -- Democrats and the moderate wing of the House GOP -- is the pathway to enacting a sweeping set of bipartisan agreements. A week after the storm vote, a large bipartisan majority passed a three-month extension of the debt ceiling. "It is hard to see this Congress being viewed as a bipartisan one, but we have seen a glimmer of light on the recent bipartisan vote to extend the debt ceiling," said Ron Bonjean, a onetime aide to the Republican leadership. Obama's Duty
Maintaining that momentum in the House won't be easy, and it could require Obama's personal leadership. Getting Boehner to take such a perilous route could depend in large part on successful cajoling from the president.
pessimistic. And on this subject -- the relationships among Washington's top leaders -- discussion of a deal being cut becomes sharply
Capital is key --- keeps the GOP at the table

Anniston Star 3-27 (Citing the AP, On the offensive: Obama is wise to start anew the push for
immigration reform) The point: President Obama didnt fulfill his promise of securing sweeping immigration-reform policies during his first term. Now in his second, Obama is beginning a new campaign to urge legislators particularly Republicans to find a bipartisan compromise that (a.) isnt watered down and (b.) is effective. Its a lot to ask. Nevertheless, Obama is wise to go on this offensive. The need, as always, is great. An Associated Press report this week points out that the president is working behind the scenes in order to keep Republicans at the negotiating table between now and Congress April 8 return from spring break. The key is the Senate working group, the Gang of Eight, that is putting together a bipartisan plan the White House has yet to see. Well reserve judgment on the product of those discussions until its produced, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Here is where wed like to see the professorial Obama take an aggressive stance and will Congress to pass the immigration reform this nation needs. Unfortunately, even in his second term Obama is facing overwhelming Republican opposition on virtually all matters of policy. His is a precarious perch: push too hard and risk a Republican storm; push meekly and risk ineffectiveness.
173 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Capital Key Right Now

Obama just needs capital now during the recess --- key to support for the Senate proposal
Anniston Star 3-27 (Citing the AP, On the offensive: Obama is wise to start anew the push for
immigration reform) The point: President Obama didnt fulfill his promise of securing sweeping immigration-reform policies during his first term. Now in his second, Obama is beginning a new campaign to urge legislators particularly Republicans to find a bipartisan compromise that (a.) isnt watered down and (b.) is effective. Its a lot to ask. Nevertheless, Obama is wise to go on this offensive. The need, as always, is great. An Associated Press report this week points out that the president is working behind the scenes in order to keep Republicans at the negotiating table between now and Congress April 8 return from spring break. The key is the Senate working group, the Gang of Eight, that is putting together a bipartisan plan the White House has yet to see. Well reserve judgment on the product of those discussions until its produced, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Here is where wed like to see the professorial Obama take an aggressive stance and will Congress to pass the immigration reform this nation needs. Unfortunately, even in his second term Obama is facing overwhelming Republican opposition on virtually all matters of policy. His is a precarious perch: push too hard and risk a Republican storm; push meekly and risk ineffectiveness.
Thats key to passage

Corbin 3-5 (Kenneth,- Washington Journalist for CIO Magazine, a trade magazine for chief information
officers and other IT leaders No Deal on H-1B Visas for STEM Workers Without Immigration Bill) Schumer says he is hopeful that the committee can mark up and move a bill on to the full Senate by late spring or early summer. He also emphasizes the importance of garnering significant bipartisan support for the final product, envisioning a floor vote that would be sufficiently lopsided to force the House to pass its own immigration-reform legislation, with the two chambers then reconciling their respective versions in a conference committee. "I think if we pass a bill in the Senate with a nice bipartisan group-not 55 Democrats and five Republicans, but rather 50 Democrats and 20 Republicans--the pressure on the House will be so large that they will have to [pass] a bill. It won't be a bill the same as ours, but then we'll have a conference," Schumer says. Earlier this year, many tech-industry groups hailed the introduction of a bill in the Senate that would explicitly address the H-1B temporary worker program and offer an exemption for foreign workers trained in STEM subjects. But there is no path forward and out of the Senate for that type of narrow measure, Schumer said on Tuesday, urging representatives of tech companies to focus their advocacy on achieving a workable compromise on the thornier matters of the immigration debate that will need to be addressed for the passage of a broader reform bill. Schumer, the chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center, assured the audience that the majority party in the upper chamber will accept a comprehensive bill or no bill at all.
The delay alone triggers the link

Hesson 3-27 (Ted,- Immigration Editor for ABC in Washington D.C. 3 Reasons Why an Immigration
Reform Timeline Matters)
174 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
3. Primaries If the so-called Senate "Gang of Eight" working on immigration reform is able to produce a bill in April, the Senate and House could feasibly vote and pass legislation before the August recess in Congress. But any further significant delay could jeopardize that timeline. If Congress continues to negotiate the bill in the fall, some Republican members of the House facing reelection in 20 14 may be less likely to give their support, fearing a primary challenger who will use the issue as a political cudgel. "I think the House leadership feels like they've got to get this done and behind them by [the August recess] because their guys are going to be unwilling to take a tough vote after that," Fitz said.
175 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
176 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Capital Key Wage Dispute

Capital is key to break deadlock on wages
US News 3-27 (GOP Toes Big Businesss Immigration Reform Line)
But, they are insistent that the workers are paid the same wage as American workers. The latest offer to set the wage rate for foreign workers at the median of the wages for that particular job was rejected by Senate Republicans representing business interests. So the question becomes, what is an acceptable wage? Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio recently said on the Mark Levin talk show that this is a "big fight the president is going to have to have if he's really interested in moving this forward."
177 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Single Package Key to Passage

Capitals key to comprehensive legislation breaking it up kills the bill
Helderman and Nakamura 1/25, Rosalind S. Helderman covers Congress and politics for the Washington Post, staff writer for The
Washington Post Senators nearing agreement on broad immigration reform proposal, 1/25, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-nearing-agreement-on-broad-immigration-reform-proposal/2013/01/25/950fb78a-664211e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html But obstacles
abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit but should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come here legally. Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubios approach would result in wait-times stretching for decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to create
new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort. It is not yet clear whether the Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens something Obama is expected to champion. Schumer said it would be relatively detailed but would not get down into the weeds. A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform. As a possible 2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort. Rubio and other Republicans have said they would
prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that seeks to reform the
process in a single bill. I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill, said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort. Anytime a bills more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If its 2,000 pages, they go berserk. But Schumer said Friday that
single package will be key for passage . Well not get it done in pieces, he said. Every time you do a piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more people opposing it. Eliseo Medina, secretary
treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates
expect Obama to be out front on the issue . The president needs to lead
and then the Republicans have a
choice, Medina said. The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president.
178 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Obama Not Involved

Obama toeing the line with Congress now capital key to keep pressure on without politicizing the issue plan causes Obama to overreach derailing reform. Shear 2-16. [Michael, reporter, "The White House Continues Working on Immigration Legislation of Its Own" New York Times -www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/us/politics/white-house-moves-ahead-on-its-own-immigration-bill.html?_r=0] Mr. Obamas administration has been
working on immigration legislation for years. But the issue shot to the top of the presidents second-term agenda after his re-election in November, when Hispanic voters backed him in large numbers. White
House officials are betting that Republicans will be eager to embrace immigration changes as a way of repairing their image with an important voting bloc. But getting
legislation passed remains tricky, especially in the Republican-controlled House, and Mr. Obama has made it clear he will take a back seat to lawmakers if it will help. Negotiations are taking place among a bipartisan group of senators, a separate group in the House, and labor leaders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, praised Mr. Obamas tone on the issue last week, saying the president actually doesnt want to politicize this, which is conducive to getting something done. On Wednesday, the White
House said Mr. Obama met with Democratic senators at the White House to get a status report on the pace of progress on the legislation. In a statement after the meeting, White House officials said the
president reiterated his pledge to become more involved if necessary. The statement said Mr. Obama told them he expects the process to continue to move forward and stands ready to introduce his own legislation if Congress fails to act. It remains unclear how long the president is willing to wait. In interviews with Spanish-language television stations after his speech last month, Mr. Obama suggested that he wanted to see real progress by March, when lawmakers had said they hoped to have reached an agreement. If they can get a piece of legislation debated on the floor by March I think thats a good timeline. And I think that can be accomplished, he said on Univision last month. Im not going to lay down a particular date because I want to give them a little bit of room to debate. If it slips a week, thats one thing. If it starts slipping three months, thats a problem. Top priority for Obama newest ev.
Irish Central 3-29. ["President Obama 'confident' immigration reform bill could pass by summer VIDEO" -www.irishcentral.com/news/Obama-confident-immigration-reform-bill-could-pass-by-summer--VIDEO-200584251.html] President Obama
predicted that Congress could pass a reform bill by the end of the summer when he said that last-minute obstacles are "resolvable" this week. The president gave several interviews with Spanishlanguage television networks this week in which he voiced confidence in a bipartisan Senate group that appears to be on the
cusp of unveiling a draft bill. "If we have a bill introduced at the beginning of next month as these senators indicate it will be, then I'm confident that we can get it done certainly before the end of the summer," Obama told Telemundo. Overhauling
the nations
immigration system is a top priority for Obama during his second term. Obama push overcomes obstacles number one priority.
Whitaker 3-27. *Morgan, MSNBC producer, "Obama sees enormous progress on immigration reform" MSNBC -tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/obama-sees-enormous-progress-on-immigration-reform/]
I think weve
seen enormous progress over the last month and a half. I think both sides, Democrats and Republicans, have been very serious optimistic that when they return in early April that well see a bill ready to move through the process. The president insisted the current impasse over a guest-worker program would not ultimately stall the bill. There are still some areas about the future flow of guest workers, and labor and businesses may not always agree exactly on how to do this, but this is a resolvable issue. Those same senators backed his claim, telling reporters Wednesday they will be ready to unveil their plan when they return from recess in less than two
about the negotiations, he said. Im actually very
179 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
weeks. Their remarks came as they toured the U.S.-Mexico border. As the president pointed out in his interview, border security has already been drastically
improved under his administration, with fewer crossings than at any point in years, something that even former opponent Senator John McCain has admitted.
When it comes to the politically controversial pathway to citizenship, the president focused on eliminating red tape to help speed up the process for those willing to go through the process. If we have a smarter legal
immigration system that is more streamlined, theres a smoother verification process, that were reducing some of the red tap e and bureaucracy, then we can make sure that those who are already in line are processed more quickly, he said. People who are currently undocumented, living in this country, have to go to the back of the line. But if the front of the line is getting shorter, that means that they can move f orward in this process more quickly. Asked
about the potential political pitfalls if the legislation were to fail, Obama insisted hes focused on making the legislation work. Im concerned about the people whose lives are going to be impacted by it, an d I want to make sure they have the capacity to move forward and live out the dream of immigrants that has driven this country for so many years, he said. Its good for the economy, its good f or these people. That is my number one priority .
180 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Obama Involvement Bad

Obamas strategy is tailored to avoid GOP backlash he still has to push behind the scenes
Sink 3-26 (Justin,- staff writer for the Hill, quoting Cal Jillison, political science professor at Southern
Methodist University After taking hit in the polls, Obama pivots back to immigration reform) Obama faces a delicate high-wire act on guns and immigration: Claim too much ownership for an issue, and swing-state Republicans who had been considering working with the White House might buck; Sit too far back, and risk losing steam on policy initiatives or allowing Republicans to take credit. In both of those policy areas, the president is involving himself carefully , allowing what appears to be some momentum in Congress to manage the issues, Jillson said. The president's involvement is modest, if not behind the scenes , because there is still enough post-election bad blood among the House GOP that direct presidential involvement drives away support.
181 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: Obama Executive Order Solves

Obama wont XO Hamilton 3/26 (Keegan Hamilton is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. He was formerly an
editorial fellow and reporter for Village Voice Media, How Obama Could (But Probably Won't) Stop Deporting Illegal Immigrants Today, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/howobama-could-but-probably-wont-stop-deporting-illegal-immigrants-today/274352/) The question, he says, is "whether coming into the country in violation of the immigration laws or overstaying a visa could be deemed an 'offense against the United States.'" But the president has broad powers of pardon, and it seems that Obama could exercise those powers here. Beck cites United States v. Klein, an 1871 Supreme Court case that involved a presidential pardon issued during the Civil War to confederates who rejoined the union and took an oath of loyalty. But even if executive-branch lawyers could put forth a legal rationale for the move, there are political reasons why Obama would likely be reluctant to make it. Although potentially cementing loyalty from a generation of Latinos, a mass pardon would likely be deeply unpopular with moderates and liberals who put faith in the legislative process, and would be considered downright treasonous by many Republicans. Obama could face Congressional censure or perhaps even impeachment if he had any time remaining in office, and the backlash against Democrats could make the Tea Party-fueled, Obamacare-inspired shellacking of 2010 look mild. "If in December 2016 Obama says, 'Unconditional pardon to everybody in the country illegally,' that would totally dismantle Democratic Party governance for a generation," Mayer says. "I don't think he wants that to be his legacy."
Obama wont do major immigration changes through XOs Krikorian 12. [Mark, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, "The president's unconstitutional DREAM amnesty gets
rolling" Center for Immigration Studies -- cis.org/OpedsandArticles/DREAM-Amnesty-Begins-Krikorian-National-Review]
The president knows what hes doing is unconstitutional. We dont have to read his mind to know this hes said it repeatedly. In July of last year, he told the National Council of La Raza, The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But thats not how our system works . Thats not how our democracy functions. In September he told some journalists: I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think theres been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. Its just not true.
XO cant solve the impact Ben Winograd, Immigration Impact, 8/15/12, Busting Myths About Deferred Action ,
immigrationimpact.com/2012/08/15/busting-myths-about-deferred-action/ Myth: Deferred action is amnesty. As we explained on Monday, deferred action is not amnesty. Recipients of deferred action
are neither placed on a path to citizenship nor given any formal immigration status. Even though the government has temporarily pledged not to deport them, and they are considered to be lawfully present, they have no legal right to remain in the country. They cannot sponsor family members to come to the United States; may not travel abroad without receiving advance permission from the government; and do not receive a green card. Myth: Deferred action provides immunity from deportation. Many commentators have said that recipients of deferred action will receive immunity from deportation, implying that the government may not revoke the protection. In truth, deferred
action is a purely discretionary form of relief that can be rescinded at any time by this or any 182 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
future administration. Myth: Deferred action will allow undocumented immigrants to get jobs that could have gone to unemployed natives. Most of the immigrants who are currently or potentially
eligible for deferred action are still in school (K-12) and will not be competing for jobs against anyone. In fact, only around half a million are not currently in school, which amounts to between 0.3% and 0.5% of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, the DACA initiative will enable more
undocumented youth to go to college and then to join the labor force as skilled workers. And economists have found that highly educated immigrant workers are not in job competition with the vast majority of native-born workers.
Congress key to visas- set quota levels Endelman 9 (Gary, Ph.D. in History University of Delaware and JD University of Houston, and Cyrus D. Mehta, JD Columbia Law
School and Managing Member Mehta & Associates, The Path Less Taken: Is There an Alternative to Waiting for Comprehensive Immigration Reform?, 2-25, http://www.cyrusmehta.com/Print_Prev .aspx?SubIdx=ocyrus200922512947 There are those who argue that only Congress can make immigration policy in this fundamental way and this reservation is both serious and worthy of deep respect. Yet, we have a dysfunctional Congress that is or appears to be incapable or unwilling to reach consensus on immigration. Do we as a society simply throw up our hands and do nothing, allowing a bad situation to become worse or do we use this challenge as an opportunity to create something better through temporary and targeted executive action that Congress can either overturn or accept at a later date? There are several examples of administrative action to create new immigration policy in the face of Congressional inaction in recent years. In the STEM OPT regulation, the USCIS openly admitted that granting an additional 17 months of employment authorization was a regulatory response to an inadequate H1B quota. When they limited the validity of a labor certification of 180 days, the US Department of Labor did so on their own without the fig leaf of legislative authorization.17 Remember when the AAO handed down the decision in New York State Department of Transportation,18 thus effectively repealing the national interest waiver statute for several years until the relaxation came?19 Finally, under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1996, even if the Cuban national entered without inspection, the former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner clarified that the Service could use its authority under the humanitarian and significant public benefit criteria in Section 212(d)(5) to parole Cubans who had entered without inspection under the fiction that the individual would surrender to the government, which in turn would release or parole him or her, and thus render them eligible for adjustment of status under the CAA.20 Did Congress tell them they could do that? All of these actions, and many others not singled out, had profound effect but depended solely upon the
Those who do not think so ignore at their own peril and ours the fundamental distinction between making policy, which only Congress can do, and implementing tactical adjustments, which the Executive is uniquely suited to do. This is why only Congress can create a legal status while the Attorney General can authorize a period of stay. This is why only Congress can enlarge the EB quota but the Executive can allow adjustment applications without a quota expansion so long as final approval is not forthcoming. This is why only Congress sets visa limits while the Executive can grant parole. This is why only Congress sets work visa law but the
imaginative exercise of executive authority yet consonant with a proper respect for separation of powers. So we can do so here. Executive can issue EADs. To suggest that Congress must act in both a long and short term context is to ignore the historic and legitimate differences between the two branches of government. If
Congress wants to overturn such executive action, it can do
so. Likewise, if it supports the President, it can stay its hand. Either way, Congress is expressing its will, whether through positive action in the
form of legislation or negative action in the form of silent acquiescence. Both action and its absence are authentic manifestations of congressional intent. In reality, we all know that there are 40 votes in the Senate to uphold such regulatory initiative. Congress will be more than content to allow the President to take the lead and solve what it has manifestly been powerless to solve- how to regulate both past and future migration flows; how to solve the growing unskilled worker backlog; how to ameliorate the gratuitous cruelty of the 3/10 year bars; how to reduce the size of the undocumented population who may already working here and contributing to the exchequer and how to satisfy the hungry manpower needs of employers once the dark cloud of recession lifts without creating a single new immigrant visa.
All XOs have been small scale- large scale XO action will never happen Stein 10 (Sam Stein stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting Become a Fan Get Email Alerts from this Reporter 'Smoking Gun Amnesty Memo' Prompts GOP To Demand Hearings First Posted: 084-10 11:09 AM | Updated: 08- 5-10 12:45 PM
Senate Republicans are demanding hearings into a leaked Department of Homeland Security memo that has stoked conservative fears that the
But a closer look at the issue, and the circumstances surrounding the memo, suggest that the calls for hearings are more likely driven either by politics or paranoia. On Tuesday, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) insisting that he "schedule a hearing as soon as possible" into an internal memorandum leaked last week from Citizenship and Immigration Services, a subset of
Obama administration is pursuing de facto amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants.
183 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
DHS. The memo in question laid out a variety of available options the agency could take to "reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who reportedly released the document, insisted that the White House was planning to skirt congressional authority in efforts to grant amnesty to a wide swath of immigrants. Soon conservative media outlets began howling with discontent. "Smoking Gun Amnesty Memo Discovered," blared Fox News. Hoping to quiet the noise, the Obama administration noted early on that the memo in discussion has no date on it, is an internal draft without an official sign-off and goes against the grain of actual administration policy -- there have been after all, a record number of removals of undocumented immigrants under the
Obama administration. And while the administration has already taken steps to make obtaining citizenship easier for those undocumented immigrations who have spouses or relatives in the armed services, it has done so at the behest of Republicans and Democrats.
If the White House is secretly planning to legalize a large class of people in the absence of Congressional action, logic dictates that they would have done it by now. As one aide told the Huffington Post, the president has, on several occasions, told grassroots groups lobbying the White House that his obligation is to enforce federal laws and not use executive powers to grant de facto relief. "Some of the grassroots groups lobbied us to provide large-scale administrative relief in a meeting directly with the President and he told them no," the aide relayed. "He said, in no uncertain terms, that he needs to enforce the law and that the administration was trying to get a bill through Congress that resolves the situation." Perhaps the most persuasive form of pushback, however, was provided by the White House to the Huffington Post. In a letter written to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex) back on May 13, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explicitly ruled out the idea that the executive branch could give blanket amnesty to an entire class undocumented workers.
Executive action fails deters employers and immigrants Cox and Rodriguez 9 Adam & cristina Adam B. Cox is a Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law
School. Cristina M. Rodrguez is a Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. The President and Immigration Law The Yale Law Journal 119:458 2009
For example, in
situations in which the Executive would prefer to admit immigrants with lawful status, it is largely powerless to do so. Their lawful admission would be inconsistent with the admissions criteria established by Congress. One instance in which the Executive might prefer access to the lawful path is when potential immigrants are unable or unwilling to bear the risks associated with unlawful entry. Whereas many lowskilled migrants with few other options bear these risks, high-skilled immigrants often will not. Migration to the United States may be less valuable to the latter, because they have more migration options, or because they have economic prospects at home sufficient to support a family and live a good life. What is more, employers of high-skilled immigrants may be much less likely to take the risk of flouting the immigration laws than employers of lower skilled labor. For high-skilled migrants, then, the delegation of ex post screening authority substitutes poorly for ex ante authority.
184 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: Hirsch PC Irrelevant

Political capital is key to the agenda and finite for Obama in the second term, he cant do a replay of his first term Schultz 1/22/13 (David Schultz is a professor at Hamline University School of Business, where he
teaches classes on privatization and public, private and nonprofit partnerships. He is the editor of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) Obama's dwindling prospects in a second term http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/obamas-dwindling-prospects-second-term) Presidential power also is a finite and generally decreasing product. The first hundred days in office so marked forever
by FDRs first 100 in 1933 are usually a honeymoon period, during which presidents often get what they want. FDR gets the first New Deal,
Presidents lose political capital , support But, over time, presidents lose political capital. Presidents get distracted by world and domestic events, they lose support in Congress or among the American public, or they turn into lame ducks. This is the problem Obama now faces. Obama had a lot of political capital when sworn in as president in 2009. He won a decisive victory for change with strong
Ronald Reagan gets Kemp-Roth, George Bush in 2001 gets his tax cuts. approval ratings and had majorities in Congress with eventually a filibuster margin in the Senate, when Al Franken finally took office in July.
Obama used his political capital to secure a stimulus bill and then pass the A ffordable C are A ct. He eventually got rid of D ont A sk, D ont T ell and secured many other victories. But Obama was a lousy salesman, and he lost what little control of Congress that he had in the 2010 elections. Since then, Obama has be stymied in securing his agenda.
Moreover, it is really unclear what his agenda for a second term is. Mitt Romney was essentially right on when arguing that Obama had not offered a plan for four more years beyond what we saw in the first term. A replay wouldn't work Whatever successes Obama
had in the first term, simply doing a replay in the next four years will not work . First, Obama faces roughly the same hostile Congress going forward that he did for the last two years. Do not expect to see the Republicans making it easy for him. Second, the presidents party generally does badly in the sixth year of his term. This too will be the case in 2014, especially when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate than the GOP does. Third, the president faces a crowded and difficult agenda. All the many fiscal cliffs and demands to cut the budget will preoccupy his time and resources, depleting money he
would like to spend on new programs. Obama has already signed on to an austerity budget for his next four years big and bold is not there. Fourth, the Newtown massacre and Obamas call for gun reform places him in conflict with the NRA. This is a major battle competing with the budget, immigration, Iran and anything else the president will want to do. Finally, the
president is already a lame duck and
will become more so as his second term progress . Presidential influence is waning One could go on, but the point should be clear: Obama has diminishing time, resources, support and opportunity to accomplish anything. His political capital and presidential influence is waning , challenging him to adopt a minimalist agenda for the future. What should
Obama do? Among the weaknesses of his first term were inattention to filling federal judicial vacancies. Judges will survive beyond him and this should be a priority for a second term, as well as preparing for Supreme Court vacancies. He needs also to think about broader structural reform issues that will outlive his presidency, those especially that he can do with an executive order. Overall, Obama has some small
opportunities to do things in the next four years but the window is small and will rapidly close.
They misread Hirsh---his point isnt that political capital is meaningless, he agrees with Orenstein that its influential Hirsh 2/7 (Michael, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207) The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a 185 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.
Obama is working to shape the bill behind the scenes and going public both things that have MASSIVE academic support BECKMANN & KUMAR 11 Professor of Political Science, UC, Irvine [Matthew N.
Beckmann and Vimal Kumar, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3
Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some
researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents secure greater support for their priority items, and when they exert effort pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically going public when advocating popular proposals (see also Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members positions as a bill moves through the legislative process.
However, even among these relative optimists, the prescription for presidents appears to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy. In discussing the challenge for a president looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell offers a comparable assessment. He writes, The number and variety of choices place great demands upon *presidents+ strategic calculation, so much so that pluralist leadership must be understood as an artan ability to sense right choices. (Kernell, 1993: 36) Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical findings noted above, that is, a general (if modest) pattern of president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but not on key roll-call votes, remain unexplained.
This paper aims to demystify the White Houses legislative strategies, both their logic and their effects. Developing a non-cooperative game in which the president allocates scarce political capital to induce changes in legislators behavior , we deduce two lobbying strategies White House officials may execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that presidents foremost influence comes from bargaining with congressional leaders over policy alternatives before bills reach the floor, not bargaining with pivotal voters for their support once they do. Precisely because so much of the presidents influence comes in the legislative earlygame (rather than the endgame), we theorize that typical roll-call-based tests of presidents legislative influence have missed most of it.
Well read two cards on the theory BOTH from Professors of Presidential Politics citing studies NOT from a blogger at the Daily Beast A. Insiders believe its true so it de-facto is SCHIER 11 Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College [Steven E. Schier, The Contemporary Presidency: The Presidential Authority
Problem and the Political Power Trap, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 793 808, December 2011] The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political authority. Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the president's conduct of his job, the president's electoral margin, and patronage appointments (Light 1999, 15). Light derived this list from the observations of 126 White House staff members he interviewed (1999, 14). His indicators have two 186 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are central to the players' perspective in Washington. That is, those in the game view these items as crucial for presidential effectiveness . Second, they relate to many central aspects of political authority as defined by Skowronek. So on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. The data here will reveal that presidents over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital ,
a trend that is at the heart of their political authority problem. Many scholars have examined particular aspects of presidential political capital, from congressional support (for example, Bond and Fleisher 1992, 2000; Mayhew 2005; Peterson 1993) to job approval (Brace and Hinckley 1991; Kernell 1978; Nicholson Segura and Woods 2002). From these, we know that presidential job approval is influenced by economic performance, tends to drop over time, and that divided government can boost job approval. Also, job approval and control of Congress by fellow partisans boosts presidential success in floor votes but does not produce more important legislation than does periods of divided government. These micro it to previous micro findings.
findings, however, comport with a
macro trend of declining presidential political capital over time. This analysis explores that macro trend and relates
B. Losing capital hurts BECKMANN & KUMAR 11 Professor of Political Science, UC, Irvine [Matthew N.
Beckmann and Vimal Kumar, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3
Before developing presidents lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is
instructive to consider cases where the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of imposed passivity (beyond offering a proposal), a presidents fate is clear: his proposals are subject to pivotal voters preferences. So if a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivots predisposition
(Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998) (see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that there tends to be substantial ideological distance between presidents and pivotal voters, positive
presidential influence without
lobbying, then, is not much influence at all.11
Hirsh admits that controversial actions HURT the presidents agenda here is an article FROM HIM that fighting for Rices nomination would have hurt Immigrations chances HIRSH 12 14 12 [Michael Hirsh, Obama Gets a Solution to His Susan Rice Problem,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-gets-a-solution-to-his-susan-rice-problem20121213]
It was a classic Washington exit: stealthy and swift, with few fingerprints. President Obama didnt want to be seen as backing down. So Susan
Rice one of his most devoted aides since 2007 gave him the way out, seemingly all on her own.
If nominated, I am now convinced that the confirmation process would be lengthy, disruptive, and costly to you and to our most pressing national and international priorities, Rice wrote on Thursday in a letter withdrawing her name from consideration as secretary of State. In a statement in response, Obama said that while I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, he accepted her decision. He added that Rice will continue as his U.N. ambassador for the time being. This was all the part intended for public consumption. The underlying reality is this: The president is almost certainly furious about this turn of events which represents the first major defeat hes suffered since his reelection but hes
a savvy enough politician to know how to back off without seeming to back down. While floating Rices name for secretary of State in the media was always something of a
trial balloon she was never formally nominated or even publicly declared by the administration to be the leading candidate to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton Obama appeared to really want to appoint her, calling her extraordinary and excoriating GOP attacks on her with unusual (for him) personal pique.
187 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
But as the weeks passed, it
{File Name}
became clearer that Rices biggest political problem was no longer just the klatch of Republican senators, led by John McCain, who were fiercely criticizing her for allegedly misleading statements on the attack at the U.S.
consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11. After a series of strikingly unsuccessful meetings on Capitol Hill in which she failed to impress even moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins of Maine, Rice also found
herself facing resistance from foreign-policy elites who questioned her temperament
and her record. In addition, human-rights critics were up in arms over her behavior toward African dictators, particularly her role in allegedly holding up publication of a U.N. report that concluded the government of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, with whom she has a long and close relationship, was supplying and financing a brutal Congolese rebel force known as the M23 Movement. That may have been the tipping point, though an official on Rice's team declined to say so. As
she put it herself in her letter to Obama, the president had some other pressing national international priorities. It is far more important that we devote precious legislative hours and energy to enacting your core goals, including comprehensive immigration reform , balanced deficit reduction, job creation, and maintaining a robust national defense and effective U.S. global leadership. In other words, the Obama team was quickly coming to realize that, even though it appeared he had considerable leverage over the Republicans following a more-robust-than-thought reelection victory, a Rice nomination was simply going to cost him too much political capital, especially when it came to a long-term budget
deal.
Others reading of that article to support PC finite FOURNIER 2 8 13 National Journal Staff [Ron Fournier,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/stung-by-media-s-focus-on-liberal-agenda-obama-pivots-backto-economy-20130208]
He needs to get back to jobs, jobs and middle-class jobs, the Democrat said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from the White House. Regardless of his approval ratings, there weeks National Journal magazine. I
are limits to Obamas political capital, as Michael Hirsh explained in this have been questioning the limits of a presidential mandate since Election Day. But the White House is confident that Obama has the upper hand against a GOP that is significantly less popular than the Democratic Party, according to polls.
188 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: lynch
Lynch evidence references no one relevant to congress and heres the conclusion of the article that says the aff crushes Obamas political capital
Lynch 2011, Peter, Renewable Energy World contributor, Feed-in Tariffs: The Proven Road NOT
TakenWhy?, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/11/feed-in-tariffs-theproven-road-not-takenwhy
FITs do not depend on taxpayer contributions (it is not a subsidy) and no new public debt is needed to fund it, which is ideal in the current recession environment. As a result, a FIT program is not as vulnerable to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the political environment. The FIT has proven superior to any other program currently in use around the world, such as subsidies with public money, tendering models and quota models. In fact, since the Germans have launched their FIT program, approximately 35 to 40 counties have followed suit and implemented their own. FITs eliminate uncertainty thereby encouraging private investment, which results in more taxable income from new companies and jobs in the industry. Remember: where widespread uncertainty exists, major investment does not. This is a basic financial concept that the U.S. has failed to understand and address. FITs dramatically reduce government bureaucracy, eliminate red tape and move the process along at a much faster and cheaper rate. Typical power purchase agreements in the U.S. are incredibly complex and require an army of lawyers and engineers which is both timely and costly for developers/owners. There is a lack of political courage to try something new or allow something that powerful contributors (utilities, fossil fuel companies) do not want to infringe on their businesses and help kick-start a competing industry.
Iowas card ends

In the U.S. the typical agreement between a producer and a utility is a minimum of 85 to 100 pages long, in Germany the comparable contract is only two to four pages. The more complex system is not working very well in the U.S., while the simple, transparent system is proven and has been successful for over 10 years in Germany. FITs, by accelerating the development of the renewable energy industry, enhance national security by lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil and helping to decrease the huge cash drain (approximately $800,000,000 per day in 2010) from buying foreign oil. FITs Are A Proven and Working Worldwide FITs must be carefully designed in order to work effectively. Germany has a 10-year-old model others can reference, and 35 models have been based from it worldwide. Some countries have designed their FITs successfully, and some have not. However the U.S. can learn much from these successes and failures. The most recent, closest and successful of these FIT programs is in the province of Ontario, Canada. FITs are not theories, nor are they the next Solyndra. Opposition to FITs: Opposition Is Talk, FITs Are Fact FITs major opponent is the local electric utility. These utilities argue that FITs work contrary to the market, but most utilities are not market-driven. They are monopolies monopolies do not respond to market forces. As history has shown, the last thing a monopoly wants is competition in the market. But if one looks at FIT results, especially in another developed country like Germany, the numbers speak for themselves. FITs are far more market-oriented than monopolies. There is a lack of political courage to try something new or
allow something that powerful contributors ( utilities, fossil fuel companies) do not want to infringe on their businesses and help kick-start a competing industry. Why Germany and Not the U.S.? The primary reason
FITs are working in Germany and not in the U.S. is the respective mindsets in each of the countries .
Germany: Here are two quotes from Willi Voigt, former minister of the German state of Schlexwig-Holsteim, one of the early adopters of FITs. We decided we will reduce the CO2 until 2020, 40 percent, *and by+ 2050 by 80 percent. Then we debated the instruments that could make this possible and decided on feed-in tariffs. I hear arguments (spoken in 2009) we discussed in Germany 10 or 15 years ago. Its the same debate. In Germany, we made a decision; we made a law.the renewable Energy Resources Act (FIT). It worked. You can see the results.
United States: The Germans made a decision that would benefit their citizens and then followed through. The U.S. cant make a decision every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has recognized the unsustainable path we are on and has vowed to move toward less oil-dependence. Since those first vows our dependency has more than doubled. Opponents of renewables have done a great job in the media to dampen energy awareness and its solution American people.
(FITs )
from widespread dissemination among the
I believe that the majority of the citizens in the U.S. are not aware of our energy problem and how truly serious it is.
Americans, it seems to me, have always been reactive (at least in the energy area) and the current situation calls for us to be proactive. We seem to be unable to make that transition. Complacency what is transparent, proven and obvious: feed-in tariffs.
is always a barrier to change. Just as the captain and crew of the Titanic became complacent when the ship was deemed unsinkable , we must not become complacent and ignore
189 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: PC Renewable
And it Solves the economy Krudy, 13 (Edward, Immigration reform seen boosting US economic growth, January 29th, 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/immigration-reform-seen-boosting-us-economicgrowth-1C8159298) The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said. By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China. "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. First Thoughts: Obama to embrace Senate immigration deal President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals would also include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. This would be
aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh.
Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate, currently stuck at about 2 percent. Nuclear war. Kemp 10 Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Geoffrey Kemp, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4)
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further
financial crisis for the to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel
weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads
190 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the
possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on consequences for two-thirds of the planets population.
stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire
191 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Political Capital Finite

Politicians think so Schier 11Dorothy H. and Edward C. Congdon Professor of Political Science at Carleton College
[Steven E. Schier, The Contemporary Presidency: The Presidential Authority Problem and the Political Power Trap, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 793808, December 2011] The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political authority . Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the president's conduct of his job, the president's electoral margin, and patronage appointments (Light 1999, 15). Light derived this list from the observations of 126 White House staff members he interviewed (1999, 14). His indicators have two central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are central to the players' perspective in Washington. That is, those in the game view these items as crucial for presidential effectiveness. Second, they relate to many central aspects of political authority as defined by Skowronek. So on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. The data here will reveal that presidents over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital ,
a trend that is at the heart of their political authority problem.
Political capital finite --- tons of research Beckmann & Kumar 11Professor of Political Science, UC, Irvine [Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal
Kumar, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3]
Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some
researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents secure greater support for their priority items, and when they exert effort pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically going public when advocating popular proposals (see also Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members positions as a bill moves through the legislative process. However, even among these relative
optimists, the prescription for presidents appears to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy. In discussing the challenge for a president looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell offers a comparable assessment. He writes, The
number and variety of choices place great demands upon *presidents+ strategic calculation, so much so that pluralist leadership must be
understood as an artan ability to sense right choices. (Kernell, 1993: 36) Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical findings noted above, that is, a general (if modest) pattern of president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but not on key roll -call votes, remain unexplained. This
paper
aims to demystify the White Houses legislative strategies, both their logic and their effects. Developing a non-cooperative game in which the president allocates scarce political capital to induce changes in legislators behavior , we deduce
two lobbying strategies White House officials may execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that
presidents foremost influence comes from bargaining with congressional leaders over policy alternatives before bills reach the floor, not bargaining with pivotal voters for their support once they do. Precisely because so much of the presidents influence comes in the legislative earlygame (rather than the endgame), we theorize that typical roll-call-based tests of presidents legislative influence have missed most of it.
192 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: No Spill-Over
Swing State republicans could switch itll be a political calculation
immigration reform) Obama faces a delicate high-wire act on guns and immigration: Claim too much ownership for an issue, and swing-state Republicans who had been considering working with the White House might buck; Sit too far back, and risk losing steam on policy initiatives or allowing Republicans to take credit. In both of those policy areas, the president is involving himself carefully , allowing what appears to be some momentum in Congress to manage the issues, Jillson said. The president's involvement is modest, if not behind the scenes , because there is still enough post-election bad blood among the House GOP that direct presidential involvement drives away support.
Spillover is real Obama is intimately involved in dealmaking

Schier 10 Congdon professor of political science at Carleton College and author of the award-winning "Panorama of a Presidency: How
George W. Bush Acquired and Spent His Political Capital" (Steven E, 2/11. Obama can learn from predecessors, Politico.com, Lexis.) Unlike Bush, Obama pushes a vast agenda, reflecting his campaign pledge to do a lot at once, and unlike Bush, Obama's tactical approach to Congress is remarkably nondirective. The signal example of this is the health care bill, in which he spent months giving mere suggestions about its content as congressional sausage-making proceeded. The
public distrusts Congress and rejects the tawdry deal making that accompanies its work. Presidents do well to "hover above" such matters. The
best way to do that is by laying down clear substantive preferences and avoiding a public reputation as just one of the several deal makers.
Obama failed to do this in his first year, and his popularity suffered as a result.
Second Obamas style guarantees spillover party lines dont stay strict
Reardon 9 Professor, USC Marshall School of Business (Kathleen, 3/24. What to Do Before the Hope Bubble Bursts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/what-to-do-before-the-hop_b_178737.html) Barack Obama, despite the massive problems he faces, is a popular president. Some of it may be the honeymoon of the first one hundred days, though these weeks have hardly deserved the term. It may be his infectious smile and determination and his tendency to come to us rather than to stay within the beltway hunkering down as many Republicans want him to do.
60 Minutes Obama himself mentioned "flickers" of it appearing lately in the economy, and that was before the Dow soared 500 points. But it may also be a phenomenon in persuasion , which is that when people publicly commit to an action, they find it uncomfortably dissonant to change their minds. In short, many people who supported Barack Obama did so in very visible ways, often going against their political party, and they simply don't want to now believe or admit that they might have been wrong.
A good part of it may be that hope still lingers. On
GOP backlash to Obama now spillsover and tanks the agenda

Dickerson 3-21 (John,- Slate's chief political correspondent How Not to Woo Republicans)
The premise of the president's recent outreach to Republicans is that he might be able to build connections that would lead to a grand budget bargain. This relationship relies on trust. Republicans must trust that if they take a political risk to support changes in the tax code that would bring in revenue for deficit reductionwhich will hurt them with their supportersthe president won't undermine them further with their voters by making them look like chumps. This relationship needs to do more than just win their agreement. It needs to be flexible and durable enough to help 193 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Republicans build support on their own side. The presidents Republican partners have to make the case for this bargain (still a near-fantasy long shot) to their voters and colleagues who don't trust the president and who only form their opinions about him by watching television. The president understands this at some level. During the Bush years, then-Sen. Obama advised the White House that it was hard to work with the administration when Republicans were constantly making Democrats out to be terrorist appeasers. He also knows this because at least two Republican senators hes trying to work with have told him as much. Remember late last year when a fiscal cliff deal was in sight, and President Obama held a press conference with multiple jabs at Congress? So ... I'm confused, said a spokesperson for Eric Cantor, Does POTUS want a deal or not? Because all those jabs at Congress certainly sounded like a smack in the face to me." That news conference created ill-will that didnt kill the deal, but it has made working on another one much harder. Its why lots of Republicans are anticipating hell do it again on a big deal now. The president dined with Republican senators, met with Republicans on the Hill, and placed lots of behind-the-scenes phone calls that we don't know about. Ive talked to some of the senators the president has talked to, and they attest to his sincerity. They believe he wants a big deal and this outreach is not some kind of political trick. At the dinner at the Jefferson Hotel, President Obama said he would create room for a big deal by reducing his attacks on Republicans, which convinced some that he really was on a new course this time around. But two days later, the president undermined his promise. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, he characterized the Republican position as wanting to "gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid." Republicans involved in the deal-making said, There he goes again. The goodwill was diminished. Medic! This is hardly a reason to go diving for the iodine and gauze bandages. Politicians regularly say terrible things about each other and then make deals. Speaker Tip ONeill and President Ronald Reagan were often pretty mean in public. Reagan once called ONeill a round thing that gobbles up money, and the house speaker said Reagan was a cheerleader for selfishness. But the two men could work together because they had a certain level of trust. In todays world, this is how a Republican senator can say glowing things about New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. Schumer may regularly demagogue Republicans, but in a deal his word is solid. He can be trusted. The president has no trust reservoir. But he will need to create one if hes going to get a deal. So holding his tongue is how he builds that trust. It's not the only thing he must do, and it may not be enough, but it would make getting a deal easier. The president's allies worry that in negotiations with Republicans, Obama will concede to their excessive and ever-shifting demands. If he were to agree to raising the Medicare eligibility age just to get a deal, they argue, that would be bad. Those near retirement would be hurt, and there would be no deficit reduction. The benefits of getting a big deal don't outweigh those costs. That's a reasonable argument, but in this case, there is no such cost to the president knocking off the wisecracks about Republicans. He'll have plenty of time to savage them later if a deal falls through. It is no doubt hard for the president to lay off a few knocks since hes taking so many himself. When Rep. Kevin McCarthy, a member of the House Republican leadership, says that the president is spending more time on his NCAA basketball bracket than a budget, thats a cheap shot. It's natural for the president to want to swing back. But the route to a deal is not through Kevin McCarthy. He voted against the fiscal cliff deal. The White House theory about how this grand bargain gets done assumes Kevin McCarthy and those like him will probably vote against it. Staying focused on the smaller common sense caucus should be possible for Obama and his team. They were the ones who defined the no-drama approach to politics during the 2008 election, showing an ability to ignore the foolishness on cable television and go about their business. Resisting the urge to strike back is the hard part of schmoozing with the opposition, and that is where LBJ's talentswhich are so often misapplied to the current contextmight be instructive. Johnson was a brute and a bully, and he fought like hell for what he wanted. He was also incredibly arrogant. (Why check the Bible, his press secretary Bill Moyers once joked on the LBJ campaign plane, "when we have Himself here with us.") But when LBJ wanted something as much as Obama wants us to 194 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
believe he wants a deal, Johnson flattered, sublimated, and diminished himself before whomever he hoped to woo. Sometimes he even gave those senators pointers on how they should boast in public about how they'd bested him.
195 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: No Spillover (Berger)

The evidence concludes spillover is possible, were on the brink --- must avoid new controversies
Berger 3-4 (Judson,- writer for Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/recurringbudget-crises-could-put-squeeze-on-obama-second-term-priorities/) Recurring budget crises could put squeeze on Obama's second-term priorities The automatic spending cuts that kicked in over the weekend effectively added another administrative headache for a White House and Congress that have struggled with even the most perfunctory tasks. At a certain point, something's got to give. The day-in, day-out debate and speechifying and crisis management are getting to a point where they could overshadow the other planks of President Obama's second-term agenda -- for now, anyway. "He has a very ambitious agenda with both the sequester and his separate policy priorities, and there is a bandwidth issue at the end of the day," said John Ullyot, a longtime senior Senate aide and Republican strategist. For starters, agencies must now figure out how to trim their fiscal waistlines, while the president tries anew to negotiate a more "balanced" deal out of Congress -- all while trying to avert a government shutdown and secure another debt-ceiling increase. Still, all the items from the president's campaign and State of the Union address supposedly remain on the docket: immigration reform, gun control, policies to curb climate change, an increase in the minimum wage and expanded access to preschool. Over the weekend, President Obama stressed his commitment to pursuing all those items. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated that message Monday from the briefing room. But while administration officials have insisted that Washington can walk and chew gum, the president's first term stands as a cautionary tale. The president devoted his political capital and time to passing the health care overhaul, while other legislative items were pushed off. Obama has revived some -- immigration reform -- and introduced others -- gun control -- at the start of his second term. But politics and a crowded agenda could already be tainting the Washington waters. Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, was quoted over the weekend saying: "The president understands that, to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives." The comment appeared to write off the next two years. Ullyot said that perhaps Obama's biggest challenge for his second-term agenda will indeed be the 2014 elections, and convincing moderate Democrats to bend on hot-button issues like gun legislation. But in terms of time management, Ullyot said Obama may soon realize that pursuing a "balanced" package of tax revenues and spending cuts to replace the $85 billion in sequester cuts may not be worth his time. "In the end, the president may back off on spending a lot of time on replacing the sequester" so he can press the other issues, he said. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a vocal advocate for immigration reform, voiced confidence Monday that the administration and Congress could handle the busy agenda. "The spirit of bipartisan cooperation that is keeping the immigration issue moving forward has not been poisoned by the sequester and budget stalemate, so far, " he said in a statement. "The two sets of issues seem to exist in parallel universes where I can disagree with my Republican colleagues strenuously on budget matters, but still work with them effectively to eventually reach an immigration compromise. ... I remain extremely optimistic that immigration reform is going to happen this year." Immigration reform efforts are still marching along despite the budget drama. Obama met last week on the issue with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who both are part of a bipartisan group crafting legislation. However, work on gun control before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week was postponed.
196 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Budget fights almost drained all his capital --- Obama has to avoid any new spending issues
immigration reform) The White House hopes to bolster President Obamas political standing by shifting attention from the bruising budget battles of the last month to immigration reform and gun control. Democrats welcome the pivot after watching Obamas standing in polls fall amid fights with Congress over the budget and the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester. They see immigration and gun reform as a better playing field for Obama that could provide political wins for the president. What the public wants to see right now is him achieving things, leading, said Tad Devine, a former strategist to Secretary of State John Kerry and former Vice President Gore. For him, there's real opportunity on all these fronts, and realistically in the next six months, he can have progress he can bring back to the American people. On gun control, Obama will travel the country to bolster the case for strengthening background checks on gun purchases. Obama is expected to play an active role in the looming Senate fight over what Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has described as the sweet spot of legislation. A poll released Friday from Quinnipiac University shows that 88 percent of respondents support an expansion of background checks on new weapons purchases. Other provisions banning straw sales and improving gun research programs and school security funding garner similarly commanding poll advantages. "There actually is a lot of strong support for the proposals that the president has put forward, whether it's universal background checks, whether it is, you know, outlawing gun trafficking or straw purchasers," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "There's even some support out there in the public for the assault weapons ban." Yet, the assault weapons ban doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate, and neither does background checks unless a bipartisan deal is reached. Immigration is a better issue for the president, partly because a growing number of Republicans want to pass a bill in the 113th Congress. While Republicans in Congress had little reason to negotiate with Obama on preventing the sequester, they do have reason to offer concessions on immigration . "Immigration reform in particular is something clearly that Latinos and the American public as a whole signaled they wanted in the last election, and Republicans ought to get on the right side of that issue," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "It doesn't seem like complicated math, and Republicans are basically deciding, do they want to be a House-based party, or do they want to be a national party that competes for the presidency and competes for the control of the Senate?" "Immigration reform in particular is something clearly that Latinos and the American public as a whole signaled they wanted in the last election, and Republicans ought to get on the right side of that issue," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "It doesn't seem like complicated math, and Republicans are basically deciding, do they want to be a House-based party, or do they want to be a national party that competes for the presidency and competes for the control of the Senate?" Moreover, immigration reform which failed in the George W. Bush administration would be Obama's most significant legislative achievement behind healthcare reform. If the administration were able to get an immigration bill that looked anything like comprehensive immigration reform after President Bush had failed on it, President Clinton had failed on it, every president back to Reagan had failed, it would be a big deal, said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. Democrats are worried that Obama hasn't had a lot of signing ceremonies in 2013 as unresolved budget battles have hit the president's approval ratings. Obama's healthy post-election advantage on the economy has dwindled into a virtual tie with congressional Republicans. Voters equally blame Obama and the GOP for the sequester, which is expected to hit in full force in the coming weeks. 197 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
198 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
A2: Winners-Win
Controversial wins bleed momentum not build it. Politico, 1/20/2010 (Obama's first year: What went wrong, p.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4DF829C9-18FE-70B2-A8381A971FA3FFC9) Obama believed that early success would be self-reinforcing , building a powerful momentum for bold government action. This belief was the essence of the White Houses theory of the big bang that success in passing a big stimulus package would lead to success in passing health care, which in turn would clear the way for major cap-and-trade environmental legislation and re-regulation of the financial services sector all in the first year. This proved to be a radical misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts combined with the inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage meant that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum rather than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many Americans by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care.
Obama believes the link, wouldnt act on the Turn

Robert Kuttner, senior fellow, Demos, Obama Has Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesnt Know What to Do with It, Alternet, 42809,
www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_doesn%27t_know_what_to_do_with_it/ We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted.Thus
the most
important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama's conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.
Wins only build long-term capital

Purdum 10, Columnist for Vanity Fair, (Todd, Obama Is Suffering Because of His Achievements, Not Despite Them, 12-20 www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/12/obama-is-suffering-because-of-his-achievements-not-despite-them.html)
With this weekends decisive Senate repeal of the militarys Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy for gay service members, can anyone seriously doubt Barack Obamas patient willingness to play the long game? Or his remarkable success in doing so? In less than two
years in officeoften against the odds and the smart moneys predictions at any given momentObama has managed to achieve a landmark overhaul of the nations health insurance system; the most sweeping change in the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression; the stabilization of the domestic auto industry; and the repeal of a once well-intended policy that even the military itself had come to see as unnecessary and unfair. So why isnt his political standing higher? Precisely because of the raft of legislative victories hes achieved. Obama has pushed through large
and complicated new government initiatives at a time of record-low public trust in government (and in institutions of any sort, for that matter), and he has suffered not because he hasnt done anything but because hes done so
muchway, way too much in the eyes of his most conservative critics. With each victory, Obamas opponents grow more frustrated, filling the airwaves and what passes for political discourse with
fulminations about some supposed sin or another. Is it any wonder the guy is bleeding a bit? For his part, Obama resists the pugilistic impulse. To him, the merit of all these programs has been self-evident, and he has been the first to acknowledge that he has not always done all he could to explain them, sensibly and simply, to the American public.
199 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
But Obama is nowhere near so politically maladroit as his frustrated liberal supportersor implacable right-wing opponentslike to claim. He proved as much, if nothing else, with his embrace of the one policy choice he surely loathed: his agreement to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts for wealthy people who dont need and dont deserve them. That broke one of the presidents signature campaign promises and enraged the Democratic base and many members of his own party in Congress. But it was a cool-eyed reflection of political reality: The midterm election results guaranteed that negotiations would only get tougher next month, and a delay in resolving the issue would have forced tax increases for virtually everyone on January 1creating nothing but uncertainty for taxpayers and accountants alike. Obama saw no point in trying to score political debating points in an argument he knew he had no chance of winning. Moreover, as The Washington Posts conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer bitterly noted, Obamas agreement to the tax deal amounted to a second economic stimulus measureone that he could never otherwise have persuaded Congressional Republicans to support. Krauthammer denounced it as the swindle of the year, and suggeste d that only Democrats could possibly be self-defeating enough to reject it. In the end, of course, they did not. Obama knows better than most people that politics is the art of the possible (its no accident that he became the first black president after less than a single term in the Senate), and
an endless cycle of two steps forward, one step back. So he just keeps putting one foot in front of the other, confident that he can get where he wants to go, eventually. The short-term resultsare often messy and confusing. Just months ago, gay rights advocates were distraught because Obama wasnt pressing harder to repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell. Now he is apparently paying a price for his victory because some Republican Senators whod
promised to support ratification of the START arms-reduction treatyidentified by Obama as a signal priority for this lame-duck session of Congressare balking because Obama pressed ahead with repealing DADT against their wishes. There is a price for
everything in politics, and Obama knows that, too.
Obama empirically can't win on energy

Matthew N. Eisler, research fellow, Chemical Heritage Foundation, "Science, Silver Buckshot, and 'All of the Above," Science Progress, 4--2--12, http://scienceprogress.org/2012/04/science-silver-buckshotand-%E2%80%9Call-of-the-above%E2%80%9D/]
Conservatives take President Obamas rhetoric at face value. Progressives see the president as
disingenuous. No doubt White House planners regard delaying the trans-border section of the Keystone XL pipeline and approving the Gulf of Mexico portion as a stroke of savvy realpolitik, but one has to wonder whether Democratic-leaning voters really are as gullible as this scheme implies. And as for the presidents claims that gasoline prices are determined by forces beyond the governments control (speculation and unrest in the Middle East), it is probably not beyond the capacity of even the mildly educated to understand that the administration has shown little appetite to reregulate Wall Street and has done its part to inflate the fear premium through confrontational policies in the Persian Gulf. Committed both to alternative energy (but not in a rational, comprehensive way) and cheap fossil fuels (but not in ways benefiting American motorists in an election year), President Obama has accrued no political capital from his
energy policy from either the left or the right by the end of his first term. The president long ago lost the legislative capacity for bold action in practically every field, including energy, but because
the GOPs slate of presidential candidates is so extraordinarily weak in 2012, he may not need it to get re -elected. At least, that is the conventional wisdom in Democratic circles. Should President Obama win a second term, Congress is likely to be even more hostile than in his first term, as in the Clinton years. And as in the Clinton years, that will probably mean four more years of inaction and increased resort to cant.
Winners win is wrong--leading scholar says so

Jackie Calmes, "In Debt Talks, Obama Is Ready to Go Beyond Beltway," NEW YORK TIMES, 11--12--12, LN.
That story line, stoked by Republicans but shared by some Democrats, holds that Mr. Obama is too passive and deferential to Congress, a legislative naf who does little to nurture personal relationships with potential allies - in short, not a particularly strong leader. Even as voters re-elected Mr. Obama, those who said in surveys afterward that strong leadership was the most important quality for a president overwhelmingly chose Mr. Romney. George C. Edwards III, a leading scholar of the presidency at Texas A & M University who is currently teaching at Oxford University, dismissed such criticisms as shallow and generally wrong. Yet Mr. Edwards, whose book on Mr. Obama's presidency is titled "Overreach," said, "He didn't understand the limits of what he could do." "They thought they could continuously create opportunities and they would succeed, and then there would be more success and more success, and we'd build this advancing-
tide theory of legislation," Mr. Edwards said. "And that was very nave, very silly. Well, they've learned a lot, I think." "Effective leaders," he added, "exploit opportunities rather than create them." The budget showdown is an opportunity. But like many, it holds risks as well as potential rewards. "This
election is the second chance to be what he promised in 2008, and that is to break the gridlock in Washington," said
200 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Kenneth M. Duberstein, a Reagan White House chief of staff, who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and later expressed disappointment. "But it seems like this is a replay of 2009 and 2010, when he had huge majorities in the House and Senate, rather than recognizing that 'we've got to figure out ways to work together and it's not just what I want.' " For now, at least, Republican lawmakers say they may be open to raising the tax bill for some earners. "We can increase revenue without increasing the tax rates on anybody in this country," said Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia and a leader of House conservatives, on "Fox News Sunday." "We can lower the rates, broaden the base, close the loopholes." The challenge for Mr. Obama is to use his postelection leverage to persuade Republicans - or to help Speaker John A. Boehner persuade Republicans - that a tax compromise is in their party's political interest since most Americans favor compromise and higher taxes on the wealthy to reduce annual deficits. Some of the business leaders the president will meet with on Wednesday are members of the new Fix the Debt coalition, which has raised about $40 million to urge lawmakers and their constituents to support a plan that combines spending cuts with new revenue. That session will follow Mr. Obama's meeting with labor leaders on Tuesday. His first trip outside Washington to engage the public will come after Thanksgiving, since Mr. Obama is scheduled to leave next weekend on a diplomatic trip to Asia. Travel plans are still sketchy, partly because his December calendar is full of the traditional holiday parties. Democrats said the White House's strategy of focusing both inside and outside of Washington was smart. "You want to avoid getting sucked into the Beltway inside-baseball games," said Joel Johnson, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and the Senate. "You can still work toward solutions, but make sure you get out of Washington while you are doing that." The president must use his leverage soon, some Democrats added, because it could quickly wane as Republicans look to the 2014 midterm elections, when the opposition typically takes seats from the president's party in Congress.
Plan isnt a winadding issues makes it more likely winners will lose. Pastor 91Professor of political science at Emory University & director of the Latin American and
Caribbean Program at Emorys Carter Center *Robert A., Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy: Comparative Advantage or Disadvantage, The Washington Quarterly, Autumn] The third dysfunction in interbranch relations is the length of time and the amount of presidential capital needed to gain approval of a major foreign policy law or treaty. When the president makes a compelling case
that the national security of the United States demands the approval of a particular bill or treaty, Congress rarely rejects him. This was true for the Panama Canal treaties and the war in the Persian Gulf. But if
the policy is unpopular, the president will almost certainly have to devote a much larger proportion of his time and political capital to gaining approval for it, and he will have less time for and influence on other foreign policy issues. Also, if he needs to ask Congress repeatedly to approve an unpopular policy -- such as contra aid -- he will deplete his political capital and is likely eventually to lose the votes, as Reagan did. The increasing complexity of the world and its growing interdependence with the United States means that the agenda will grow, the trade-offs between domestic and international interests will become more delicate, and the role of Congress will increase proportionately. A few difficult issues -- like the canal treaties or contra aid -- can delay consideration of the entire foreign policy agenda for prolonged periods. Given a fixed amount of time and a limited number of decision makers, this systemic delay might be among the most important problems that stem from interbranch politics. The president must be very conscious of his agenda and very selective in his approach. Carter filled his agenda with a host of controversial issues at the beginning of his administration. Although he succeeded in gaining approval of the new Panama Canal treaties and new energy legislation, both issues were costly, and ironically, his victories left him weaker politically. Reagan learned from Carter's experience and selected a smaller, more manageable agenda. His victories -- the tax cut and the defense budget -came more easily in Congress, and he looked stronger as a result
.
201 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Theory & Kritik
202 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
AT: Should Ignore Politics DA

Evaluating political costs and understanding tradeoffs key to prevent genocide Lanz 8
(David, Mediation Support Project for Swisspeace, Conflict Management and Opportunity Cost: the International Response to the Darfur Crisis)
There are no simple solutions for the contradictions outlined above they represent complicated dilemmas and tricky trade-offs. It would be nave to call for more coordination among external actors in Darfur, as the difference of their approaches is structural and refl ects their respective interests and contexts. There are, however, two lessons that we can learn. The
fi rst is that resources are scarce and effective confl ict management requires priorities. It is not possible to simultaneously run a humanitarian operation, deploy
peacekeepers, try the Sudanese President in an international court, negotiate a peace agreement, and foster the democratic transition of Sudan. We need to
think about what is most important and concentrate our resources money, political capital, personnel to achieve this objective. The second lesson is that actors working in or on confl ict, whatever approach they take, must be aware that their decisions and actions have opportunity costs and that they can do harm. As David Kennedy writes, the darker sides can swamp the benefi ts of humanitarian work, and wellintentioned people can fi nd themselves unwittingly entrenching the very things they have sought voice to denounce.30 Also, those involved in the grand scheme of managing confl ict Darfur must realise that they are in essence projecting their morals and a Western political agenda and that, consequently, their good intentions may not be perceived as such, especially in the Arab world. Indeed, moving from selfcentred and selfrighteous dogmatism to a pragmatic assessment of causes and consequences would be a big step, and it would certainly improve our ability to manage conflicts in Darfur and elsewhere.
You should evaluate our politics DA. Their dogmatic refusal to consider political process implications is grounded in the same destructive blindness the aff criticizes.
David Chandler, Centre for the Study of Democracy - University of Westminster, 3 (British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5.3, Rhetoric without responsibility)
The attention to the articulation of a political mission, beyond the petty partisanship of left and right, through foreign policy
activism abroad has been an important resource of authority and credibility for western political leaders. The ability to project or symbolise unifying values has become a core leadership attribute . George W. Bushs shaky start to the US presidency was transformed by his speech to Congress in the wake of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks, in which he staked out his claim to represent and protect Americas ethical values against the terrorist heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century (Bush 2001). Similarly, Tony Blair was at his most presidential in the wake of the attacks,
arguing that values were what distinguished the two sides of the coming conflict: We are democratic. They are not. We have respect f or human life. They do not. We hold essentially liberal values. They do not (The Guardian, 27 March 1999). Peter Hain, minister of state at the UK Foreign Office, also focused on the values that the terrorists attacked in his call for political unity around tough action (The Guardian, 24 September 2001). By association with the cause of the victims of international conflicts, western governments can easily gain a moral authority that cannot be secured through the domestic political process. Even general election victories, the defining point of the domestic political process, no longer bring authority or legitimacy. This was clear in the contested victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 elections, which turned on the problem of the hanging chad in Florida. However, the problem of deriving legitimacy from elections is a much broader one, with declining voter turnouts. In the British elections in 2001 Tony Blair achieved a landslide second term mandate, but there was little sense of euphoriathis was a hollow victory on a 50 per cent turnout which meant only one in four of the electorate voted for New Labour. The
demise of the framework of traditional party politics, the source of western governments domestic malaise, is directly associated with the search for an external source of legitimacy . This process is illustrated in Michael Ignatieffs quote from the
writings of British war reporter Don McCullin: But what are my politics? I certainly take the side of the underprivileged. I could never say I was politically neutral. But whether Im of the right or the leftI cant say ... I feel, in my guts, at one with the victims. And I find theres integrity in that stance (Ignatieff 1998, 2223). Ignatieff suggests that the external projection of legitimacy or moral mission stems from
the collapse of the left/right political framework, stating that there are no good causes leftonly victims of bad causes (ibid., 23).
203 9-Feb-14
Planet Debate
{File Name}
Governments, like many gap-year students, seek to define and find themselves through their engagement with the problems experienced by those in far-off countries. This search for a moral grounding through solidarity with the victims of bad causes has led to an increasingly moralised black and white or good versus evil view of crisis situations in the non-western world.10 The jet-setting UK prime minister, Tony Blair, has been much criticised for appearing to deprioritise the domestic agenda in the wake of September 11, yet even his critics admit that his moral mission in the international sphere has been crucial to enhancing his domestic standing. The search for ethical or moral approaches emphasising the governments moral
authority has inexorably led to a domestic shift in priorities making international policy-making increasingly high profile in relation to other policy areas. The emphasis on ethical foreign policy commitments enables western governments to declare an
unequivocal moral stance, which helps to mitigate awkward questions of government mission and political coherence in the domestic sphere. The contrast between the moral certainty possible in selected areas of foreign policy and the
uncertainties of domestic policy-making was unintentionally highlighted when President George Bush congratulated Tony Blair on his willingness to take a stand over Afghanistan and Iraq: The thing I admire about this prime minister is that he doesnt need a poll or a focus group to convince him of the difference between right and wrong (UKGovernment 2002). Tony Blair, like Bush himself, of cours e relies heavily on polls and focus groups for every domestic initiative. It is only in the sphere of foreign policy that it appears there are opportunities for western leaders to project a self-image of purpose, mission and political clarity. This is because it is easier to promote a position which can be claimed to be based on clear ethical values, rather than the vagaries of compromise and political pragmatism, in foreign policy than it is in domestic policy. There are three big advantages: first, the object of policy activism, and criticism, is a foreign government; second, the British or American government is not so accountable for matching rhetoric to international actions; and third, credit can be claimed for any positive outcome of international policy, while any negative outcome can be blamed on the actions or inaction of the government or population of the country concerned. The following sections highlight that the lack of connection between rhetorical demands and
accountability for policy-making or policy outcomes has made selected high-profile examples of ethical foreign policymaking a strong card for western governments, under pressure to consolidate their standing and authority at home.
204 9-Feb-14

And Me!!!!

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

And Me!!!!

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planet Debate

Page 1 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 2 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 3 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 4 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 5 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 6 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Plan drains capita(insert)l Capitals key

Insert impact scenario of choice

Page 7 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Uniqueness Immigration Specific

Page 8 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms

Page 9 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Ill pass now but its not guaranteed

Page 10 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Bill could unravel, Hispanic voting power doesnt guarantee passage

Passage isnt assured theres still disagreement in the GOP

Page 11 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 12 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Labor issues resolved

Security issues resolved

Page 13 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Immigration deal now

Immigration will pass, but status quo is goldilocksObamas behind-the-scene PC is key

Page 14 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

is a better issue for the president, partly because a

Jillson, a political science professor at Southern

faces a delicate high-

post-election political capital is being gradually depleted.

Page 15 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 16 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Top of the Docket

Page 17 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

sort of stuck on the ten-yard line, he said, but Im optimistic

well get a bill in the next few weeks.

Page 18 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Public Backlash / 07 Proves

Page 19 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Itll pass despite some public outcry --- 2 reasons

Page 20 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Not Until 201

Page 21 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Obama Involvement Backfires

Obama is carefully managing his approach to avoid backlash

Page 22 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 23 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Guest Workers/Low Skill Workers

Planet Debate the-low-skilled-worker-visa/#ixzz2Px4N7lSQ

Page 24 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/08/immigration-reform-the-coming-fight-overthe-low-skilled-worker-visa/#ixzz2Px3xO7gV

Page 25 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Border Security

Page 26 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Border security wont hold up the billitll be included

Page 27 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

A2: Path to Citizenship

The bill will have path to citizenship

Page 28 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Path to citizenship will get included NYT 3 22 13 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/broad-support-for-path-to-citizenship-pollfinds.html?_r=0

Page 29 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013

Page 30 of 204 Immigration Politics April 11, 2013