Cuba

Topshelf

1NC
The Cuban embargo is poised to overcome the fight in
Congress and be repealed, and Obama is heading the
effort
Naiman, 12/18

[Robert, 12/18/14, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, is the president of Truthouts
board of directors, and writes on US foreign policy for Huffington Post. He has Masters degrees in
economics and mathematics and studied and worked in the Middle East, Can Congress End the Cuban
Embargo? Many Republicans Want the Embargo to Fall, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/cancongress-end-cuba-emb_b_6349942.html]

Can Republicans nostalgic for the Cold War block President Obama from
taking executive actions to improve US diplomatic and economic ties with
Cuba? Could a Republican-led Congress vote to end the US embargo? Some
Republican leaders were quick to denounce President Obama's
announcement that the United States was restoring ties with Cuba. But how
many divisions do these Cold War dead-enders control? On whether
Republicans can follow through on threats to block the president, Associated
Press is skeptical: Opponents of President Barack Obama's sudden move to
reestablish ties with Cuba has little chance of scuttling his effort in Congress.
[. . .] But even if they were to pass sweeping legislation to stop what Obama
wants to do, he could veto it, and they are not likely to have the votes to
override a veto. [. . .] Republicans will face pressure from businesses and the
farm industry - eyeing opportunities for commerce in Cuba - not to stand in
the way of expanded ties. The Chamber of Commerce spent heavily in the
midterm elections, investing $35 million to elect business-minded,
predominantly Republican lawmakers. Its president, Thomas J. Donohue, said
Wednesday that Obama's actions "will go a long way in allowing opportunities
for free enterprise to flourish." The DNC noted that many establishment-wing
Republican presidential hopefuls (but not Rand Paul!) slammed the
president's move to restore ties. But, as AP noted: Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who
also went to Cuba to accompany [Alan] Gross home, said Obama's move
should not be seen as a concession. "My sense is that most of my colleagues
feel that we're long past due" in moderating the US stance on Cuba. House
Speaker John Boehner joined the dead-ender chorus of denunciation. But will
Boehner be able to control the Republican rank and file? A 2009 CBS/New
York Times poll found a plurality of Republicans (60 percent of Americans,
overall) thought all Americans should be allowed to travel to Cuba . Utah
Republican Jason Chaffetz said the President's move didn't go far enough:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), meanwhile, questioned why any restrictions
would remain on travel to Cuba for Americans. "I think there is an issue of
freedom," Chaffetz, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, said in a phone interview with The
Washington Post. "It's amazing to me, post-Cold War, that the United States
of America will not allow me to travel to Cuba," he added. "I think we should
allow all Americans to make those choices. You can travel to North Korea, you
can travel to some pretty awful places. Americans should be able to make
those decisions all by themselves." Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis [IL13] praised the President's move: US Rep. Rodney Davis hailed an Obama
administration move to normalize relations with Cuba, saying the shift has
the potential to be good for the Cuban people and for American agriculture.

"What I hope this brings to the American people is the ability to trade with a
country that is craving our products and craving assistance from our
agricultural sector," the Taylorville Republican said Wednesday. "Illinois stands
to gain from leaps and bounds with the ability to sell our crops. The terms of
purchasing and selling products are changed in this decision by the president.
In the past Cuba would have to pay in advance before the product got there.
From what I'm reading there's been some modifications that allows for more
normalized trade relations. That really helps out Illinois agriculture." Recall
that a left-right coalition led by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Democratic
Rep. John Conyers almost succeeded in passing a post-Snowden restriction on
NSA blanket surveillance against the policy of the administration and the
House Republican leadership. A similar left-right coalition supported by the
president and public opinion could successfully push Congress to end the
Cuba embargo. The Congressional Progressive Caucus - almost half the
Democrats in the new House - is fully onboard: "The president has laid out a
promising path forward and now it is up to Congress to act . Congress must lift
the trade embargo and normalize travel between our two nations, which are
only 90 miles apart. The Congressional Progressive Caucus looks forward to
working with President Obama and members of Congress who want to
stabilize relations between the U.S. and Cuba."

<LINK>
Ending the embargo is key to relations
Chase 12/18 (Michelle Chase, assistant professor of history and Latin American and
Caribbean studies at Bloomfield College, Rapprochement with Cuba needs to go further,
12/18/14, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/cuba-diplomatic-relationsembargoobama.html,
\\acc. 1/5/15, ali\\)

Obamas announcement yesterday that the U.S. would reestablish diplomatic ties with Cuba marked the end of an inglorious
episode of U.S. foreign policy. The change is a positive step, but we need to go
President Barack

further . The U.S. should acknowledge its half-century of aggression overt and covert
and repeal the embargo that has helped stunt the islands economy.

The
rupture of diplomatic relations in January of 1961 was only the beginning of decades of various attempts to overthrow, destabilize and subvert
the Cuban government. These ranged from the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 to various forms of sabotage directly orchestrated or fostered by
the Central Intelligence Agency to assassination attempts against Fidel Castro that continued until President Richard Nixon finally put a stop to
them. These CIA machinations have become the stuff of satire in popular culture: Jokes about the CIAs exploding cigars abound. But it was no
laughing matter. What failed in Cuba worked elsewhere, as the destabilization of Salvador Allendes government in Chile culminating in
Augusto Pinochets 1973 coup and Allendes death attests. In retrospect, our efforts to destabilize Cuba in the decades after the 1959
revolution are striking for their unremitting meanness. No forum was too petty, no sphere considered impenetrable, especially in the 1960s.
From orchestrating Cubas expulsion from the Organization of American States in 1962 to enlisting writers to oppose the Cuban government in
public forums such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom to hounding down the most meager economic transactions between the Cuban
government and other countries of the free world, the U.S. overlooked no opportunity to derail the Cuban government. As the recent
revelations of the U.S. Agency for International Developments attempt to penetrate Cubas hip-hop music scene five years ago reminded us,
the U.S. has left virtually no stone unturned. The point about these wrong-headed clandestine policies is not merely that they were ineffective
or counterproductive though they certainly were but that they violated Cuban sovereignty. In the U.S. arsenal, the economic embargo has
been its most formidable weapon. Originally referred to as the Economic Denial Program, it began piecemeal in 1960, when the U.S. cut off
annual purchases of Cuban sugar known as the Cuban sugar quota and prohibited U.S. exports to the island. It is the longest-running
economic sanction we have ever perpetrated against another country. The damage caused by the embargo is hard to calculate, but its cruelty
is evident. In the name of overthrowing the Cuban leadership, this policy has punished all Cubans. To be sure, the embargo alone is not
responsible for the dire state of Cubas economy. Poor planning in the hands of both the Soviets and the Cubans shares blame. But the
embargo managed to wreak havoc on Cubas economy, especially in two periods: the early 1960s, before Soviet support fully consolidated,
and again in the 1990s, after the Soviet Unions collapse suddenly left Cuba floundering without its subsidies. The early 1960s brought on epic
struggles, as familiar food products became scarce, lines outside stores stretched around blocks and the U.S.-made machines that the island
relied on broke down without replacements parts. Cubans tempered the hardships with revolutionary excitement and determination. Rallies
were punctuated with slogans such as We may lack soap, but we have plenty of courage. Cuban workers eventually managed, saving
materials or finding ingenious solutions to the chronic problem of replacement parts. But by the 1990s, years of revolutionary fatigue and
political bureaucracy had taken their toll. The food scarcity of the 1990s made Cubans lives very difficult, and the U.S. government bears
responsibility. Over the past 25 years the economy has slowly improved, but a whole generation of Cubans has faced a daily struggle to put
food on the table. While overt political aggression by the U.S. has only tended to shore up support for the revolution, economic sanctions have
undermined it. The economic embargo worked as intended: It brought ruination to the island. The intentional

deprivation of the population represented a perverse and failed effort to force Cubans to rise up against
their leaders one that inflicted needless suffering on innocent people. For that reason, it was important

Ending
requires congressional

that Obama recognized the cruel futility of trying to push Cuba toward collapse in his speech.

the embargo, unfortunately, is not up to the president; it

repeal . Both Obama and congressional representatives need to push

for the end of a policy that has unjustifiably penalized an entire
country. After more than a half-century of enmity, we are finally
standing on the threshold of a new era in U.S.-Cuban relations. The
occasion should not only precipitate the end of the embargo but also inspire reflection. Its a good time to
remember our historical role. Not proudly, as Obama suggested in his speech, but with the somber
recognition that a long, dark chapter in the history of our foreign policy is finally over.

US-Cuban cooperation is necessary to broadly improve

existing US-Latin American tensions.
Benjamin-Alvarado 10(Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University
of Nebraska, 2010, Cubas Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to Cooperation, a Brookings Publication
obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources page 3-4)
The development of Cuba as an energy partner will not solve Americas energy problems. But the potential

deepening collaborative modalities with other

regional partners is enhanced by pursuing energy cooperation with
for improving energy relations and

Cuba

Cubas increasing leadership role in the

Caribbean region and Central America might be used by the United States to
promote collectively beneficial efforts to develop a broad range of alternative energy
technologies in the Americas. A Cuba-America partnership might also
serve as a confidence builder in assuaging the misgivings on the
for two principal reasons. 1.

part of regional partners regarding American domination . 2. Cubas

significant human capital resources in the scientific and technological arena have been grossly underused.
Cuba possesses the highest ratio of engineers and Ph.D.s to the general population of any country in Latin
America, and this can been viewed as a key asset in the challenge of maintaining energy infrastructure
across the region. Both Mexico and Venezuela face significant costs in maintaining their sizable energy
production, refining, and storage capabilities. The integrity of these two national energy systems is of
paramount interest to U.S. energy security concerns because of the potential harm to the economy that
would occur if either state were unable to deliver its exports to the American market. In this light, the
impetus for normalization of relations writ large between the United States and Cuba is not oil per se, but
enhanced energy cooperation, which could pave the way for technical and commercial exchanges that,
given the evolving nature of energy resources and energy security, could provide an opening of
collaborative efforts that could have mutually beneficial effects. What has the failure to engage Cuba cost
the United States in these geostrategic terms? Very little, one could argue. Strategically, Cuba has been a
stable entity in the region. Politically, too, it has been a mostly static environment: with the embargo in
place, policymakers and elected officials have been able to predict reactions to policy initiatives with
relative certainty. U.S. business interests in Cuba since the early 1960s have been negligible, with the
exception of a recent increase in humanitarian agricultural and medical sales. But a more central issue is
this: In light of growing concerns regarding energy supplies in the United States and demands for domestic
and regional exploration to meet American consumption, what is the cost to the United States of
maintaining a status quo relationship with Cuba? In economic terms, the cost of the failure to engage Cuba

In its 2008 report, Rethinking U.S.-Latin American

Relations, the Partnership for the Americas Commission, convened by the Brookings
Institution, suggested that the basis for effective partnership between
the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean partners is shared
common interests. The report states, Cuba has long been a subject of intense
has been considerable.

interest in U.S. foreign policy and a

stumbling block for U.S. relations with other

countries in the hemisphere. 6 Specifically, the report pinpoints two key challenges
facing the region that are directly relevant to the subject of this book: securing sustainable energy supplies
and expanding economic development opportunities.

The April 2009 report of the Brookings project

identified both medium and long-term initiatives

related to energy that directly fulfilled an element of the policy objectives
recommended in their report. 7 In order to specifically promote what the report termed a
constructive working relationship with the Cuban government to build confidence and trust in
order to resolve disputes, with the long term objective of fostering a better relationship that serves
U.S. interests and values, it recommended a medium-term initiative that allows
licenses for U.S. companies to participate in the development of
Cuban offshore oil, gas, and renewable energy resources. The report also recommended that a
on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition

long term initiative be undertaken to provide general licenses for the exportation of additional categories
of goods and services that enhance the environment, conserve energy, and provide improved quality of
life.

Effective U.S.-Latin America relations resolve every major

international threat and promote stability.
Swieg 8, (Julia E. Swieg et. Al, May 2008 (Chairs: Charlene Barshefsky,

and James T. Hill, President, The JT Hill Group, Inc. Director: Shannon K. O'Neil,
Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies Senior Adviser: Julia E. Sweig, Nelson
and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for
Latin America Studies, U.S.-Latin America Relations, A New Direction for a
New Reality, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latinamerica-relations/p16279)
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The
region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a
strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States'
fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both

this reinforces deep U.S. ties with the regionstrategic,

economic, and culturalbut also deep concerns. This report makes clear that the era of the
United States as the dominant influence in Latin America is over.
Countries in the region have not only grown stronger but have
expanded relations with others, including China and India. U.S. attention has
also focused elsewhere in recent years, particularly on challenges in the Middle East. The result is a region
shaping its future far more than it shaped its past. At the same time Latin
America has made substantial progress, it also faces ongoing
challenges. Democracy has spread, economies have opened, and
populations have grown more mobile. But many countries have
struggled to reduce poverty and inequality and to provide for public
security. The Council on Foreign Relations established an
Independent Task Force to take stock of these changes and assess
their consequences for U.S. policy toward Latin America. The Task Force finds
that the long-standing focus on trade, democracy, and drugs, while
still relevant, is inadequate. The Task Force recommends reframing
policy around four critical areaspoverty and inequality, public
security, migration, and energy securitythat are of immediate
concern to Latin America's governments and citizens. The Task Force urges that
U.S. efforts to address these challenges be done in coordination with
multilateral institutions, civil society organizations, governments,
and local leaders. By focusing on areas of mutual concern, the
United States and Latin American countries can develop a
partnership that supports regional initiatives and the countries' own
progress. Such a partnership would also promote U.S. objectives of
documented and not. All of

fostering stability, prosperity, and democracy throughout the

hemisphere.

2NC OV
The DA outweighs and turns the case
a- Only the removal of the Cuban embargo can promote
a permanent state of stability throughout the
hemisphere. Failure to do so increases the risk of
miscalculation and error replication due to failed
methods of communication- thats our 1NC Swieg
evidence
b- Only by removing the embargo can the US begin to
eliminate the major structural incentives for war.
Swieg identifies several key warrants: the promotion
of civil society organizations to resolve unrest, and
increase in global prosperity due to enhanced access
to resources, allowing for better communication in
order to resolve international issues, and spreading
democracy and commerce to unstable regions.
Absent these changes extinction is inevitable via
nuclear war.

2NC UQ Wall
Obama is capable of getting the ball rolling on repealing
the embargo, but he needs to hold on to the Republican
support he has now
Watson, 12/18

[K. William, 12/18/14, trade policy analyst for Catos Trade Policy Studies, has a BA
in Political Science at Texas Christian University, a JD from Tulane University Law School, and an LLM in
International and Comparative Law at George Washington University Law School, Republicans in Congress
Really Like the Cuban Embargo, http://www.cato.org/blog/republicans-congress-really-cuba-embargo]

President Obama made a number of spot-on arguments yesterday for why

the United States should end the ineffective trade embargo that has helped
impoverish the people of Cuba for over fifty years. However, the core
components of the embargo are statutory law that will require an act of
Congress to overturn. While its very encouraging to see the president take a
leadership role in pursuit of a good policy, getting Republicans on board is
going to be difficult to say the least. Over the last 20 years, there have been
11 votes in the two houses of Congress seeking to eliminate or amend the
Cuba embargo. In all of those votes, loosening the embargo got majority
opposition from Republicans. According to Catos trade votes database, it
wasnt even close. Republican support for the embargo has ranged from 61%
(in support of travel ban) to 91% (in support of import ban) with the average
level of support at 77.5%. Indeed, in 2005 more Republicans voted to
withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization than voted to
end the Cuba embargo. Thats not to say that positive movement on the
embargo in a Republican congress is impossible. There are encouraging
signs as well: shifting opinion among Cuban Americans alters the electoral
politics of the embargo in favor of opposition; resurgent emphasis on free
markets may temper the Republican partys reflexive love for belligerent
foreign policy; and long-time Republican opponents of the embargo will now
have renewed energy. In practical terms, embargo opponents will need to
persuade House leadership to schedule a vote and find enough support in the
Senate to overcome an inevitable filibuster from Marco Rubio and others. It
may not be impossible, but theres a lot of heavy lifting left to do. Hopefully,
the Presidents actions will be enough to get the ball rolling toward more
reform of this antiquated and harmful policy.

Obama is pushing to repeal the embargo but Republicans

are planning to fight
WSJ, 12/21

[12/21/14, Carol E. Lee and William Mauldin, Obama Faces Battle With Congress Over
Cuba, http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-faces-battle-with-congress-over-cuba-1419211849]

KAILUA, HawaiiThe shape of U.S.-Cuba relations for years to come hinges

on the brewing fight that will determine how much of President Barack
Obama s executive action to normalize ties can be blocked by opponents in
Congress. Mr. Obama, who announced plans last week to normalize ties with
Havana after half a century of hostility, is pushing forward on his broad
authority to set the tone through diplomatic relations and government-togovernment cooperation on issues ranging from crime to finance to the Ebola
crisis. But Congress controls some of the most significant restrictions on

travel, tourism and trade between the two countries, and lawmakers from
both parties have made clear they plan to complicate Mr. Obamas efforts by
refusing to fund certain proposals or confirm his nominees to fill diplomatic
posts. If youre being offered the ambassadorship to Cuba, turn it down
because you have a snowballs chance in hell of getting confirmed, said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Some of the original restrictions that make up the Cuban
embargo were authorized by U.S. presidents starting half a century ago,
relying on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

Business lobbying and pressuring from Obama and the

electorate ensure Cuban legislation
Tumulty and Gearan 12/17 (Karen Tumulty and Anne Gearen, Washington
Post, Cuba decision marks a bet by Obama that Cold War politics have turned a corner,
12/17/14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cuba-decision-marks-a-bet-by-obama-that-cold-warpolitics-have-turned-a-corner/2014/12/17/787f613a-860f-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html, \\acc.
1/5/15, ali\\)
The bulk of the GOP comments suggested that, for now at least, the conservative base remains firmly
committed to keeping relations with Cuba in the deep-freeze where they have been for half a century. That

position, however, is increasingly at odds with the view of the electorate

at large. More than a decade ago, polls began showing a tilt in public sentiment toward normalizing
ties with the island 90 miles from the tip of Key West, Fla. In 2009, a Washington Post-ABC News survey
found that two-thirds of Americans supported restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba, while only 27

old ideological and economic battle lines have

also been fading on the ground. Even as a trade embargo has remained in place, nearly
600,000 U.S. travelers went to Cuba last year the majority of them Cuban
Americans. Business interests have pushed for more openness, and the
percent opposed doing so. The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged its support for Obamas

decision. Public opinion in Florida and in the country is moving to
moderation on Cuba, and Obama is effectively using his political
capital to make a long-anticipated shift that history and the U.S.
public will support, Ted Piccone, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institutions Latin America
Initiative, wrote in an e-mail from Havana.

Timeframe
Its now or never

Faries and Lerman, 5/29

[Bill and David, 5/29/14, political correspondents for Bloomberg,

Cuba Embargo Under Pressure as Obama Urged to Ease It, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0529/cuba-embargo-under-pressure-as-obama-urged-to-ease-it.html]

Youre seeing, slowly but surely, a ratcheting up of the pressure, said

Meacham, who served as the senior adviser for Latin America and the
Caribbean on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The window for
action starts with the election and finishes around the first quarter of 2015.
The momentum for change was on display today, when Tom Donohue ,
president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber, gave a speech at
the University of Havana aimed at encouraging economic change in Cuba and
an eventual lifting of the trade embargo. He was to be accompanied by Steve
Van Andel, chairman of Amway Corp. and Marcel Smits, chief financial officer
of Cargill Inc. Donohues visit to the island, his first in 15 years, came after
the Cuban government passed a law this year to attract more foreign
investment and President Raul Castro eased travel restrictions on Cubans,
including some dissidents.

AT: Obama Can Act Alone

Obama cant remove the heart of the economic sanctions
of the embargo. Any action to do so would be challenged
in court, and even his diplomatic efforts can be stopped
by Congress by withholding funding
Schroeder, 12/17

[Peter, 12/17/14, political correspondent for the Hill, Can Obama Lift Cuba
Embargo Alone? http://thehill.com/policy/finance/227442-can-obama-lift-cuba-embargo-without-congress]

Obama cant repeal legislation enforcing the embargo without action by

Congress. Fundamentally, the embargo is law, and without Congresss
backing, the heart of U.S. economic sanctions will remain in place, said Mark
Lagon, an adjunct senior fellow for human rights with the Council on Foreign
Relations. And Kavulich said there are limits to Obamas actions. If the
president is now going to expand what people can do, when they go down
there, and how many people can go down there, is he essentially ending the
embargo? No, theres still a lot he cant do, he said. But through regulations,
Obama can chip away at the effectiveness of the sanctions, making it easier
for people to travel or trade with Cuba. Some experts on Cuba-U.S. relations
argue that Obama might have an unimpeded path toward fundamentally
changing the embargoes, even if Congress doesnt lift a finger. Robert Muse,
a Cuban legal expert, argued in a recent article that the presidents ability to
alter or rescind the embargo is essentially unfettered. The Trading with the
Enemy Act, which provides the basis for the embargo, effectively gives the
president the power to put in place and maintain economic sanctions against
hostile nations. Muse contends that, since the implementation of the trade
embargo is done by a host of regulations, the president has extremely broad
power to do away with them. After all, it was Kennedy who prohibited U.S.
exports to Cuba, meaning Obama is just as free to rescind it, he wrote. But
Obama could face a number of hurdles with a Republican House and Senate,
where some members are warning of a challenge. Shortly after the
administration announced the shift, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he
would try to bar funds from being used to establish an embassy in Cuba for
the first time since the 1960s. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said he would do
everything in his power to block Obamas efforts, while Sen. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.) said a prisoner trade accompanying the other changes
sets an extremely dangerous precedent. And some experts questioned
whether Obama was fully acting within a law, suggesting that, as with
immigration and healthcare, Obamas actions on Cuba could face a court
challenge.

**Aff Answers**

Timeframe
The embargo wont be repealed any time soon
Pace, 12/19

[Julie, 12/19/14, White House correspondent for PBS NEWSHOUR, Obama: No Quick End
to Embargo on Cuba, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-obamas-year-end-newsconference-130-p-m-est/]

WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama praised the reopening of

diplomatic relations with Cuba on Friday but said he doesnt expect it to bring
overnight change on the island, a quick end to the U.S. economic embargo or
the likelihood that he will soon visit the communist nation. This is still a
regime that oppresses its people, Obama said at a year-end news
conference two days after the historic announcement that he was moving to
end the half century of Cold War acrimony with Havana. He said he hopes to
visit Cuba at some point in his life but that he is not at the stage yet of going
or hosting Cuban President Raul Castro in Washington. Instead, Obama said
the change in policy should give the U.S. a greater opportunity to have
influence on Cuba and reflects his belief that 50 years of isolation havent
worked. He said the embargo should end but he didnt anticipate it soon. We
will be in a position to respond to whatever action they take the same way we
do with a whole range of countries around the world when they do things that
we think are wrong, Obama said. There may be carrots as well as sticks
that we can then apply.

Obama Can Act Alone

Obama has the ability to functionally remove the embargo
by himself
Taub, 12/17

[Amanda, 12/17/14, former human rights lawyer and now a foreign policy and human
rights correspondent for Vox, Obama can limit the Cuba embargo on his own. But he needs Congress to
end it, http://www.vox.com/2014/12/17/7408829/cuba-embargo-obama-lift]

The President has the power to make significant changes to the embargo and
US-Cuba relations without any action from Congress. There are three key
avenues for this, and Obama's statements today suggest that he plans to
pursue all of them. First, the President can make sanctions less restrictive in
practice by exercising his licensing authority under the current laws. The
executive branch has the authority under current law to issue licenses that
permit US citizens and corporations to do business with Cuba, travel there,
and send money to family members there. The president isn't making
licenses for those activities universally available, but he will make them
easier to get. And Obama could, if he wants, make them much easier to get.
Lawrence Ward, a partner at the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney who
specializes in sanctions compliance law, told me that the President has broad
authority to implement various general licenses. So, even if Congress does
not act, he could broaden the general licenses available to US individuals and
businesses. That would have the substantive effect of easing the embargo,
even if, legislatively, it was still in place. For instance, Ward noted that "the
President has wide latitude in general licenses authorizing travel to Cuba,"
even though a full repeal of the travel ban could only be accomplished
through legislative action. Second, the President can remove Cuba from
certain types of sanctions by changing its classification as a "State Sponsor of
Terrorism." Technically, the Secretary of State makes that determination, not
the president. However, the White House said in a statement that it had
instructed Secretary Kerry to review whether Cuba should be removed from
that list, and submit a report on his conclusions within six months. If Cuba is
no longer designated as a sponsor of terrorism, it will no longer be subject to
a variety of different sanctions, including restrictions on imports of weapons
and "dual-use" technology, and a ban on its government doing business with
US citizens and institutions. Finally, Obama has wide latitude in determining
whether to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, regardless of whether
Congress grants him permission. The Constitution specifically grants the
President the authority to send and receive ambassadors, and the executive's
foreign affairs powers are generally interpreted as including the authority to
recognize foreign governments.

TPA

Topshelf

1NC
TPA and TPP will pass, PC is key
Hickey 12/31/14 (Jennifer, freelance writer and communications consultant, Obama Eyes
Smoother Ride in New Congress on Trade Deals http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/trade-agreementsAsia-Democrats/2014/12/31/id/615800/#ixzz3NV7MDU2v )

The silver lining for President Barack Obama in the dark cloud of the 2014
midterm elections is that with Republicans holding control of
Congress, chances to move forward on approval of trade promotion authority (TPA)
and other key trade deals have greatly improved.
One of the top items on the administration's agenda is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), a comprehensive trade deal that is in its fifth year of
intense negotiations, and has seen deadlines to reach agreement pass by the last three
years. With little hope of pushing a major trade deal through Congress
during a presidential election year, supporters and opponents
recognize the coming year is critical.
This

is an all-hands-on-deck moment for the administration . They need

to get out and educate members and address the concerns they might have. Ive been advising colleagues
who are skeptical and not supportive of trade to at least engage in conversations and feedback, Democrat
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who is pro-trade, told The Washington Post.
A sign of the importance the administration places on achieving progress on the trade front is that U.S.

Froman and his staff have held 1,500 meetings

on Capitol Hill to push for TPP and TPA, according to The New York Times.
If signed, the TPP would become the largest trade deal ever passed.
The deal would ease trade barriers between the U.S. and 12 Asian
nations that together comprise close to 40 percent of the worlds
GDP.
Trade Representative Michael B.

In working to secure its passage, one of Froman's key allies on Capitol Hill will be incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, who indicated after the election his willingness to work with Obama.
Ive got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America and the president
and I discussed that right before I came over here. I think hes interested in moving forward. I said, send us trade
agreements, were anxious to look at them, said McConnell in November, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Obama told the Business Roundtable earlier this month that he has
committed to actively pushing for trade deals and is confident that
the TPP, as well as a trade deal with Europe, can be achieved in the
next year.
If he is to be successful, he must first take on members within the
Democrat caucus.
"It should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade wavering
Democrats that supporting it is the right thing to do and because it will
demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to wade
into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch told Reuters.
With TPA's primary opponent, outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid no longer
controlling the agenda , the path forward for TPA, or "fast track"
trade authority, is much smoother.
It also is one of the priorities of incoming Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Orrin Hatch.
"Renewing TPA and advancing other parts of our trade agenda also
represents an opportunity for a fully Republican Congress to work with

the administration. So, trade will almost certainly take up much of the Finance Committees
agenda as next year gets underway," said Hatch recently during a Financial Services Roundtable event,
The Hill reported.

The real challenge for Froman and supporters of trade will be to overcome
opposition coming from Democrats and their allies in the labor and
environmental left-wing of their party.

LINK
TPA is key to revitalizing the global economy, sparks
international trade, and secures peaceful international
relationships
Sur 1/7 Debnil Sur (Columnist for the Stanford Daily; double majoring
at Stanford c/o 2017 in Computer Science and Public Policy), Free
trade: A site of potential bipartisanship? 1/7/15.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/07/trade-a-site-of-potentialbipartisanship/

Interestingly, the new Republican majority in the Senate will bring in

leadership more aligned with President Obamas views on trade. Republicans
already back trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, which would let
Congress consider proposed free trade agreements on an expedited basis
once the Presidents team finishes negotiations. By assuring other nations
that Congress cannot undermine the Presidents agreements, approving TPA
would make it easier for U.S. negotiators to complete the [trade]
deals. Yet since 2008, Democrats Reid and Nancy Pelosi, both previously free
trade skeptics, have opposed such authority. On the other hand, incoming
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has expressed a belief
that potential for agreement exists on trade issues. Such agreement would
come at a welcome time for the United States. The most important
ongoing trade negotiations that would be affected include the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) with Asian nations and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. Both could
significantly improve Americas economic vitality and image abroad.
The former, involving the United States and eleven Asian nations, would be
the largest trade deal ever completed, with close to 40 percent of the worlds
GDP represented at the negotiating table. According to a recent Peterson
Institute report, a deal could increase annual global income by $295 billion
($78 billion for the U.S.) by 2025. Improving trade relations is essential
to deepening Americas relationships with rising regional powers
and regional multilateral institutions, thus lending more credibility
to President Obamas ongoing pivot to Asia. Without the
agreement, the shift today is purely military; peace in a tense region
that is vital to the global economy requires deeper economic
integration, rather than more troops and missiles. Expanding Americas
trade ties will thus only increase regional stability.
In addition to eliminating already low tariffs between the U.S. and EU, the
latter deal would harmonize regulations generally considered to be
non-tariff trade barriers, like car and pharmaceutical safety standards.

Continued tariff reductions could create huge savings for companies that do
the most transatlantic trade, resulting in 0.5 percent annual increases
to the U.S. and EU GDPs by 2027. Stimulating struggling economies
in the eurozone can also benefit Americas geopolitical interests in
the region. For instance, expediting currently-stalled liquefied natural
gas (LNG) export deals could reduce countries dependence on
Russian energy and strengthen joint U.S.-EU sanctions on the
adventurous Putin regime. Such deepened isolation may help deter
further aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Sparks global trade prevents backsliding to

protectionism
Economist 2/22/14 [The Economist 2-22, How to make the world $600
billion poorer, 2/22/14 (Print Edition),
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596934-barack-obamasunwillingness-fight-free-trade-expensive-mistake-how-make-world]

IN JULY 2008 Barack Obama, then a candidate for the presidency, declared before an adoring crowd in
Berlin that true partnership and true progress [require] constant work and sustained sacrifice. So it is

free trade. If not championed by leaders who understand its broad benefits, it
will constantly be eroded by narrow economic nationalism . Mr Obama now
with

appears to be surrendering to protectionists within his own party.

If he cannot drag

Democrats back to their senses , the world will lose its best
opportunity in two decades for a burst of liberalisation . It will also be a
signal that America is giving up its role as defender of an open
global economy in the same way that Mr Obama has retreated in foreign policy.
Obama did little to promote free trade during his first term, but has seemed bolder in his second. He
launched America into ambitious new deals with large Pacific economies
and the European Union, breathing new life into global trade talks .
Mr

Momentum built up; the constant work and sacrifice paid dividends. Members of the World Trade
Organisation agreed on a package of trade reforms in Decemberthe first truly multilateral deal in the

Diplomats credit the White Houses new resolve

for helping to bring stubborn parties to the table . Progress suddenly
seemed possible in other areas, such as liberalising trade in services
and information technology, and reducing barriers to the exchange
of environmental goods and services, which would make it
organisations 20-year history.

cheaper to curb carbon emissions .

First, shoot yourself in the foot. Then repeat

Congress must approve trade agreements. Previous

presidents had the advantage of fast-track trade promotion authority, which let
them present deals to Congress for a simple yes or no vote. Without it, lawmakers can wreck
carefully negotiated deals with toxic amendments. No country would engage in
The hitch is that

serious talks with America

under such circumstances. Fast-track is therefore essentialand

elusive. Congress last granted it in 2002; it expired in 2007. The Obama administration blithely asserted
that Congress would renew it, but many lawmakers, primarily Democrats, have signed letters opposing it.
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has all but ruled out a vote this year. And on February 14th Joe
Biden, the vice-president, told a gathering of Democratic leaders that he understood their opposition. The

White House appears to have given up with scarcely a fight. A fast-track vote before Novembers mid-term
elections seems unlikely (see article).

some
optimists claim that Congress will return after the mid-terms ready
to back fast-track, providing Mr Obama allows some boilerplate language in the bill chiding China
Why panic about this? Tactically, it could just be another piece of Washington politicking:

for allegedly manipulating its currency. Others wonder whether the trade deals are really so vital. Indeed,
the idea that they will not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining their
president.
In fact, the deals on the table are big. Reasonable estimates say that the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could boost the worlds annual output
by $600 billionequivalent to adding another Saudi Arabia. Some $200 billion of that would accrue to
America. And the actual gains could be even larger. The agreements would clear the way for freer trade in
services, which account for most of rich countries GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up trade
in services could help reduce the cost of everything from shipping to banking, education and health care.
Exposing professional occupations to the same global competition that factory workers have faced for
decades could even strike a blow against the income inequality that Mr Obama so often decries.

Tactically, even a short delay could prove fatal to both deals . Pacific
negotiations have been extended while America and Japan hammer out compromises on agriculture. Why
should Japanese politicians risk infuriating their farmers when any agreement can be torn up on Capitol
Hill? The deal with the EU was meant to be done swiftlyperhaps in as little as two yearsto keep politics

Europes leaders will now doubt Americas commitment,

given how feebly Mr Obama has fought for fast-track. Trade sceptics, such as
from mucking it up.

French farmers, are drooling. Angela Merkel, Germanys chancellor, who is already furious about American
spying, may decide that a trade deal is not worth battling for.

The greatest risk of all is that the political momentum in America ,

having swung against free trade, will be hard to reverse . Some Tea Party
Republicans oppose fast-track because they are loth to grant Mr Obama the authority to do anything.
Democrats, keen to brand themselves as the anti-inequality party, may find economic nationalism an easy
sell on the campaign stump: and, once pledged to that cause in November, candidates will not vote for the
opposite in Congress.
And for this Mr Obama deserves some blame. He is far more ardent in bemoaning inequality than in
explaining why an American retreat from the world would be the wrong way to address it. He seldom
mentions, for example, that cheap imports help the poor by cutting their shopping bills, and so reduce
inequality of consumption.
Its not a zero-sum world

There is nothing inevitable about globalisation . Governments have

put up barriers beforewith disastrous consequences during the
1930s and could do so again. So it is alarming when America, the
mainstay of an open global economy, gives off isolationist signals .

Only recently Congress childishly refused to honour an agreed-upon increase in Americas financial
commitment to the International Monetary Fund. The Federal Reserve is pushing forward with new banking
regulations that could penalise foreign banks and further Balkanise global finance (see article). Mr Obama
continues to delay approval of a critical oil pipeline from Canada, and is slow to grant permits to export
American natural gas.
America

cannot turn inward , the Obama of 2008 said in Berlin. The Obama of 2014 is

now responding: Yes we can.

Flips the aff & global war

Panzer 7Michael J. Panzner, Faculty Member specializing in Equities,
Trading, Global Capital Markets and Technical Analysis at the New York
Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency
markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN
Amro, Dresdner Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase, 2007 (Geopolitics, Financial
Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes,
Published by Kaplan Publishing, ISBN 141959608X, p. 136-138)

Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will
inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist
legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it
triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a
serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide,
those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of
desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will
almost certainly intensify. [end page 136]
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and
outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel.
Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly
difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and
reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on
the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by
noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine
business confidence and consumer spending.
In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across
markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily
spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome
exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.

The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever

more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over
shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as
factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from lessthan-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic
necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing

Disputes over
the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural
resources will become more commonplace.
precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply.

Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military
encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances,
economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for
conflicts that stem from cultural and religious [end page 137]
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away
from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their
horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a
whole new level.
Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will
also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely
assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while
Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the
Mideast . Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies

from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some

observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even
speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at
some point.

More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly

ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be
transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Longsimmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring
the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts .
Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with
conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting
bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret
stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings
of a new world war .
As events unfold, unsettling geopolitical tensions and the
continuing economic collapse will weigh heavily on the familiar
routines of everyday life, forcing many Americans to wonder
when, or if, it will ever end.

2NC OV
Protectionism outweighs the case
a) Conflict escalationskewed supply and demand will
cause tensions over resourcescultural and religious
differences will be exacerbated by economic conditions
minimal provocation can escalate to full-scale military
encountersthats Panzer
b) Escalates to great power wars
Patrick 9 (Stewart, senior fellow and director of the Program on
International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign
Relations, Protecting Free Trade, March 13,
http://nationalinterest.org/article/protecting-free-trade-3060)
In the 1930s, global recession had catastrophic political consequences-in part because policymakers took

Starting with America's own Smoot Hawley Tariff of

the world's major trading nations tried to insulate themselves by
adopting inward looking protectionist and discriminatory policies.
The result was a vicious, self-defeating cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation.
exactly the wrong approach.
1930,

As states took refuge in prohibitive tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies and competitive devaluations,
international commerce devolved into a desperate competition for dwindling markets. Between 1929 and

Global economic
activity went into a death spiral, exacerbating the depth and length
of the Great Depression. The economic consequences of protectionism were bad enough. The
political consequences were worse. As Hull recognized, global economic fragmentation
lowered standards of living, drove unemployment higher and
increased poverty-accentuating social upheaval and leaving destitute populations "easy prey to
dictators and desperadoes." The rise of Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy
and militarism in Japan is impossible to divorce from the economic
turmoil, which allowed demagogic leaders to mobilize support
among alienated masses nursing nationalist grievances. Open
economic warfare poisoned the diplomatic climate and exacerbated
great power rivalries, raising, in Hull's view, "constant temptation to use
force, or threat of force, to obtain what could have been got through normal processes of trade."
1933, the value of world trade plummeted from $50 billion to $15 billion.

Assistant Secretary William Clayton agreed: "Nations which act as enemies in the marketplace cannot long
be friends at the council table." This is what makes growing protectionism and discrimination among the
world's major trading powers today so alarming. In 2008 world trade declined for the first time since 1982.
And despite their pledges, seventeen G-20 members have adopted significant trade restrictions. "Buy
American" provisions in the U.S. stimulus package have been matched by similar measures elsewhere,
with the EU ambassador to Washington declaring that "Nobody will take this lying down." Brussels has
resumed export subsidies to EU dairy farmers and restricted imports from the United States and China.
Meanwhile, India is threatening new tariffs on steel imports and cars; Russia has enacted some thirty new
tariffs and export subsidies. In a sign of the global mood, WTO antidumping cases are up 40 percent since
last year. Even less blatant forms of economic nationalism, such as banks restricting lending to "safer"
domestic companies, risk shutting down global capital flows and exacerbating the current crisis. If

economic nationalism could raise diplomatic tensions

among the world's major powers. At particular risk are U.S. relations
with China, Washington's most important bilateral interlocutor in the twenty-first century. China has
unchecked, such

called the "Buy American" provisions "poison"-not exactly how the Obama administration wants to start off
the relationship. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's ill-timed comments about China's currency
"manipulation" and his promise of an "aggressive" U.S. response were not especially helpful either, nor is

Congress' preoccupation with "unfair" Chinese trade and currency practices. For its part, Beijing has
responded to the global slump by rolling back some of the liberalizing reforms introduced over the past
thirty years. Such practices, including state subsidies, collide with the spirit and sometimes the law of open

Obama administration must find common ground with Beijing

on a coordinated response, or risk retaliatory protectionism that
could severely damage both economies and escalate into political
confrontation. A trade war is the last thing the United States needs, given that China holds $1
trade. The

trillion of our debt and will be critical to solving flashpoints ranging from Iran to North Korea. In the 1930s,
authoritarian great-power governments responded to the global downturn by adopting more nationalistic
and aggressive policies. Today, the economic crisis may well fuel rising nationalism and regional
assertiveness in emerging countries. Russia is a case in point. Although some predict that the economic
crisis will temper Moscow's international ambitions, evidence for such geopolitical modesty is slim to date.
Neither the collapse of its stock market nor the decline in oil prices has kept Russia from flexing its muscles
from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. While some expect the economic crisis to challenge Putin's grip on power,
there is no guarantee that Washington will find any successor regime less nationalistic and aggressive.

Beyond generating great power antagonism, misguided

protectionism could also exacerbate political upheaval in the
developing world. As Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently testified, the downturn
has already aggravated political instability in a quarter of the world's nations. In many emerging
countries, including important players like South Africa, Ukraine and Mexico, political
stability rests on a precarious balance. Protectionist policies could
well push developing economies and emerging market exporters
over the edge. In Pakistan, a protracted economic crisis could precipitate the collapse of the regime
and fragmentation of the state. No surprise, then, that President Obama is the first U.S. president to
receive a daily economic intelligence briefing, distilling the security implications of the global crisis. What

To avoid a protectionist spiral

and its political spillovers, the United States must spearhead
multilateral trade liberalization involving all major developed and
developing countries.
guidance might Cordell Hull give to today's policymakers?

c) Prefer our studies

Hillebrand 10Professor of Diplomacy @ University of
Kentucky and a Senior Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency.
[Evan E. Hillebrand, Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?
Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2 2010]

A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) to Angell (1907) to Gartzke (2003) have theorized
that economic interdependence can lower the likelihood of war . Cruce
thought that free trade enriched a society in general and so made people more peaceable; Kant thought
that trade shifted political power away from the more warlike aristocracy, and Angell thought that
economic interdependence shifted cost/benefit calculations in a peace-promoting direction. Gartzke
contends that trade relations enhance transparency among nations and thus help avoid bargaining

empirical research that mostly

supports the idea of an inverse relationship between trade and war .
miscalculations. There has also been a tremendous amount of

Jack Levy said that, While there are extensive debates over the proper research designs for investigating
this question, and while some empirical studies find that trade is associated with international conflict,

most studies conclude that trade is associated with peace, both at

the dyadic and systemic levels (Levy, 2003, p. 127). There is another important line of
theoretical and empirical work called Power Transition Theory that focuses on the relative power of states
and warns that when rising powers approach the power level of their regional or global leader the chances
of war increase (Tammen, Lemke, et al, 2000). Jacek Kugler (2006) warns that the rising power of China
relative to the United States greatly increases the chances of great power war some time in the next few
decades. The IFs model combines the theoretical and empirical work of the peace-throughtrade tradition
with the work of the power transition scholars in an attempt to forecast the probability of interstate war.
Hughes (2004) explains how he, after consulting with scholars in both camps, particularly Edward
Mansfield and Douglas Lemke, estimated the starting probabilities for each dyad based on the historical
record, and then forecast future probabilities for dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) and wars
based on the calibrated relationships he derived from the empirical literature. The probability of a MID,

much less a war, between any random dyad in any given year is very low, if not zero. Paraguay and
Tanzania, for example, have never fought and are very unlikely to do so. But there have been thousands of
MIDs in the past and hundreds of wars and many of the 16,653 dyads have nonzero probabilities. In 2005
the mean probability of a country being involved in at least one war was estimated to be 0.8%, with 104
countries having a probability of at least 1 war approaching zero. A dozen countries12, however, have

The globalization scenario projects that the

probability for war will gradually decrease through 2035 for every
countrybut not every dyad--that had a significant (greater than 0.5%) chance of
war in 2005 (Table 6). The decline in prospects for war stems from the
scenarios projections of rising levels of democracy, rising incomes, and rising
trade interdependenceall of these factors figure in the algorithm that calculates the
initial probabilities over 3%.

probabilities. Not all dyadic war probabilities decrease, however, because of the power transition
mechanism that is also included in the IFs model. The probability for war between China and the US, for

the
probability of a China/US war never gets very high.14 Deglobalization
raises the risks of war substantially. In a world with much lower average incomes, less
example rises as Chinas power13 rises gradually toward the US level but in these calculations

democracy, and less trade interdependence, the average probability of a country having at least one war
in 2035 rises from 0.6% in the globalization scenario to 3.7% in the deglobalization scenario. Among the
top-20 war-prone countries, the average probability rises from 3.9% in the globalization scenario to 7.1% in

in the deglobalization scenario

there will be about 10 wars in 2035, vs. only 2 in the globalization
scenario15. Over the whole period, 2005-2035, the model predicts four great power wars in the
the deglobalization scenario. The model estimates that

deglobalization scenario vs. 2 in the globalization scenario.16 IV. Winners and Losers Deglobalization in the
form of reduced trade interdependence, reduced capital flows, and reduced migration has few positive
effects, based on this analysis with the International Futures Model. Economic growth is cut in all but a
handful of countries, and is cut more in the non-OECD countries than in the OECD countries.
Deglobalization has a mixed impact on equality. In many non-OECD countries, the cut in imports from the
rest of the world increases the share of manufacturing and in 61 countries raises the share of income going
to the poor. But since average productivity goes down in almost all countries, this gain in equality comes at
the expense of reduced incomes and increased poverty in almost all countries. The only winners are a
small number of countries that were small and poor and not well integrated in the global economy to begin

the gains from deglobalization even for them are very small.
Politically, deglobalization makes for less stable domestic politics
and a greater likelihood of war. The likelihood of state failure
through internal war, projected to diminish through 2035 with increasing globalization, rises
in the deglobalization scenario particularly among the non-OECD democracies.
Similarly, deglobalization makes for more fractious relations among
states and the probability for interstate war rises.
withand

d) Quick retaliation1930s provesimmediately after

Smoot-Hawley, dozens of other nations passed
protectionist policies this immediately causes economic
fragmentation

2NC UQ Wall
TPA will pass administration push will show republicans
Obama is not a lame duck and push presidentialist
democrats to vote for fast track.
A) Reid has backed off and Obamas continued support will
break the logjam on democrats and republicans
Reuters 12/3/14 (Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0JH24220141203)

Obama on Wednesday committed to urge lawmakers

to back a bill giving trade deals a fast track through Congress, an
effort some think could break a logjam on the issue and help secure
(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack

major agreements under negotiation.

Speaking to business leaders, he acknowledged differences within his own
Democratic Party on free trade agreements that he supports and
said he would also make the case to unions that trade brought
benefits for workers.
A bill to give the Obama administration so-called fast-track power, which would allow only yes-or-no votes
on trade deals in Congress without amendments, has been stuck all year.

Obama said he planned to speak to congressional leaders on both

sides to make "a strong case on the merits of why this has to get
done."
Trade experts said personal intervention by the president would
boost support for trade promotion authority, or TPA, in Congress, where there
is opposition from some Republicans as well as Democrats.
"It should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade
wavering Democrats that supporting it is the right thing to do and because it will
demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to wade
into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said.
Analysts say fast-track authority would persuade other countries to make
their best offers during negotiations, secure in the knowledge that any pact could not
be reopened by Congress.
Obama said

free trade is "tough politics"

among some lawmakers because many

Americans feel their wages and income have stagnated as a result of foreign trade.

B) Its a unique area for cooperation that lame duck

Obama wants to cash in on before leaving office.
Needham 12/15/14 (Vicki, The Hill, Hatch says trade an area where GOP, Obama can work
together, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/227171-hatch-puts-trade-atop-his-agenda)
A top Senate Republican said on Monday that

tackling trade policy represents a way

for a Republican-controlled Congress and the White House to work

together on an ambitious agenda.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is expected to take the helm of the Senate Finance Committee, said
passing trade promotion authority (TPA) is not only an avenue to completing two massive trade deals

the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) but is a
place where Republicans can work with President Obama.
"Renewing

TPA and advancing other parts of our trade agenda also

represents an opportunity for a fully Republican Congress to work
with the administration ," he said during remarks at a Financial Services Roundtable event.
"So, trade will almost certainly take up much of the Finance
Committees agenda as next year gets underway."
Supporters argue that the 12-nation TPP, which includes nations from Chile to Japan, and the efforts
between the U.S. and the European Union to forge a trade deal are key to boosting the nation's economic
growth.
Hatch said without TPA, also known as fast-track, "these efforts to expand market access will not succeed."

Fast-track allows Congress to vote on trade deals on up or down

votes and without amendment.
Last week, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said trade issues will continue
to require both parties in the next Congress.
Froman said that

the Obama administration has been comforted by the

messages we've heard from Republican leadership on their desire

to work together on trade.

C) Republican controlled congress, but PC is still key.

Maruyama & Kyle 12/18/14 (Warren & Robert, The Hill, Republican control of Senate
boosts prospects for TPA and TPP, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/227449republican-control-of-senate-boosts-prospects-for-tpa-and)

Republican gains in U.S. mid-term elections on November 4, including Republican

control of the Senate, boosted prospects for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), although it will
not happen in the lame duck session and remains far from a sure thing.
TPA, formerly known as the fast-track, gives the president authority to submit trade agreements to the
Congress for an up-or-down vote on approval within specific time limits as long as the president consults
closely with the Congress during the negotiations and achieves certain negotiating objectives. Originally
enacted in the Trade Act of 1974, TPA strikes a balance between (1) Congress ultimate authority to
regulate trade under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, (2) the need for a mechanism to assure
U.S. trading partners that the president has authority from the Congress to negotiate trade agreements
that necessarily will include a mix of both gains for U.S. exports as well as U.S. concessions that may
generate political opposition. TPA ensures that the agreement will be voted on and treated as a package.
While Congress has given TPA to the President for various trade negotiations, the last grant of such
authority lapsed in June 2007 and has not been renewed. This has been an impediment in TPP, since it is
not clear whether the president can deliver the Congress on any deal that is struck.

Obama, House Speaker John

Boehner (R-Ohio), and the incoming Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
all cited international trade as one of the issues where bipartisan
cooperation is feasible. However, while the outlook for trade policy and
Congressional approval of TPA improved somewhat , TPA remains
After the Republicans took control of the Senate on November 4, President

far from a certainty , and could easily fall victim to the bitter
partisanship

that has consumed Washington, DC in recent years

weakened influence

or President Obamas

over Congressional Democrats.

Obama and McConnell will push for bipartisan support for

TPA
Washington Post 12/09/14 (A website that does stuff. Staying on track ;
http://westhawaiitoday.com/opinion/editorial/staying-track ; DOA 12/12/14)

The U.S. labor market continues to heal. Employers created more than 300,000 new payroll jobs in November, the vast majority of them in the
private sector. The unemployment rate remains at 5.8 percent, but there are signs that wages at last are growing again, at least modestly. Of
all major industrial economies, the United States is probably the healthiest. Indeed, if favorable trends such as low oil prices continue, the
economy might achieve the long-awaited escape velocity that would enable the Federal Reserve to end its zero interest-rate policy without

Obama

harming growth. For all the heat hes taking over other issues, from foreign policy to Ferguson, Mo., President
deserves more
credit for the economys soft landing after the Great Recession, even if he has to share it with the Fed and the boom in domestic energy

remarks in a meeting with the Business Roundtablelast week

showed that he has at least a couple of realistic ideas for how he and the new
Republican-controlled Congress can help consolidate the recovery in
2015. Specifically, Obama emphasized the prospects for a bipartisan
agreements on tax reform and international trade. Neither of those will
be easy, but the latter is probably more achievable in the short term
production. His

especially if Obama follows through on his pledge to take on folks in my own party and in my own constituency who oppose it. Republicans
already back legislation that would permit Congress to consider proposed free trade pacts with the European Union and 11 Pacific Rim nations
on an expedited basis, once Obamas team finishes negotiating them. This bill, known as trade promotion authority (TPA), would make it easier
for U.S. negotiators to complete the deals because it gives the other nations involved greater assurance that Congress cannot undermine what
the president agrees to. Yet until now, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., a long-time trade skeptic, has slow-walked TPA. By
contrast, Reids soon-to-be successor, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a TPA enthusiast. That makes sense generally and
especially with regard to these two proposed trade deals, which involve mainly high-wage, environmentally conscious trading partners such as

theres a
potential for agreement on trade. Still, TPA would take 60 votes to clear the Senate. If McConnell is
willing to deliver most or all of his Senate Republican majoritys votes for
this long-postponed Obama administration policy objective, and if
Obama reciprocates by pushing Democrats to join, Americans will see growth-enhancing
proof that bipartisanship is not dead.
Europe, Japan, Australia and Singapore. In a separate meeting with business leaders, McConnell expressed the view that

TPA will pass now- critical for trade deals

Fatka 12/26 Jacqui Fatka (Policy editor for FarmFutures) Tide
Changing on TPP Negotiations, Farm Futures, 12/26/14.
http://farmfutures.com/blogs-tide-changing-tpp-negotiations-9315

TPA passage Dave Salmonsen, senior director of congressional

relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the
presidents recent call for passage of Trade Promotion Authority is
positive for passage in 2015, and he expects Congress to take up a
bill early next year. TPA gives the President the ability to take any finalized
trade deal to Congress for just an up or down vote. Vetter said TPA is
critical to getting a trade deal across the finish line. It allows
negotiating partners to understand that whatever deal is agreed upon will be
the one put into final action. Leaders in the House and Senate have
made strong commitments to advancing the legislation. She
reported the administration is working very closely with both houses
of Congress in a bipartisan fashion in hopes to move forward on TPA
early next year. Salmonsen added that technically TPA is a revenue bill,
so will have to pass the House first. He expects the Senate could hold its own
hearing prior to the House advancing a bill though.

2NC I/L
TPA key to pass TPP and TTIP which are key to US and
Global economy
Sabas 12/10/14 (Matthew Sabas is a Research Associate at Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for

Policy Research. New Opportunities from Free Trade ; http://www.economics21.org/commentary/-free-trade-TPP-TPA-EU12-10-2014 ; DOA 12/12/14)

The United States is negotiating two trade agreements that have the
potential to expand U.S. exports to a billion global consumers. The U.S.EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would liberalize
trade between the United States and 39 countries across five
continents, which collectively account for almost two-thirds of global
economic output. The passage of both treaties would be a boon for the U.S. economy. The competitiveness of domestic
firms would rise dramatically in partner markets, as lowered trade barriers would make the price of American merchandise drop abroad.

Opening up trade would also benefit American consumers, who

would gain increased choices in the marketplace. The United States began negotiations for
entry into TPP in 2008 and TTIP in 2013

. Both agreements have strong support from

the White House and the House of Representatives . However, the Senate,
under Majority Leader Harry Reid, never granted President Obama the ability to make legitimate negotiations for free trade agreements,
known as Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Reid allowed Trade Promotion Authority expire under President George W. Bush in 2007 and it was

President Obama needs Trade P

Authority in order to speed up
the agreements. Negotiating free trade agreements presents a conundrumCongress has authority over regulating foreign trade, while the
never reinstated.

romotion

president is responsible for negotiating treaties. Trade Promotion Authority resolves the ambiguity by allowing Congress to set the objectives and rules for the United
States during negotiations. In return, Congress must hold an up-down vote on the treaty when it is finalized. This balance prevents members of Congress from slipping in
special interest favors or using certain procedural tricks to prevent the agreed-upon treaty from becoming law. It also prevents a president from favoring his environmental

. Our partners will not take

trade negotiations seriously if there is a chance that one disgruntled
congressman could derail a painstakingly crafted treaty that has
been years in the making. The UKs House of Lords has noted as much in a recent report, stating,
[w]ithout Trade Promotion Authority, the United States cannot make serious offers as
part of the TTIP negotiations. With Senator Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader, trade agreements will have
and organized labor base in negotiations and ending up with a treaty that will be vetoed by Congress

another chance in America. However, there is still the possibility that rising protectionism abroad, particularly in economically-anemic Europe

. This underscores the need

for Congress to act swiftly when it convenes in January. The figure below shows
that the United States has substantial exports to countries in the trade negotiations. TPP countries import
44 percent of total U.S. exports, and the EU accounts for another 17
percent. By reducing anti-free trade practices in other countries,
U.S. exports to these countries will increase at a much faster rate , but
the more technical aspects of the treaty-regulations could be the most valuable for cutting export costs. If TTIP is passed, U.S.
exports to the European Union are predicted to grow by 37 percent.
The increase in U.S. exports would total $300 billion, increasing GDP
by $125 billion annually and adding 13 million jobs to the economies
by 2027. Approving TPP would lower trade barriers to an alternative set of economiesJapan, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Though the countries differ, the
economic benefits do not. TPP would increase U.S. national income
by an estimated $77 billion per year, potentially leading to an
additional $123.5 billion in U.S. exports by 2025. There is no
question that a massive influx of income would result from the
passage of both agreements. The increase to Americas export sector alone would be larger than the entire
economy of Denmark. The U.S. economy would benefit from an additional $200
billion in income, in addition to consumers access to superior goods
and Japan, could make it politically impossible to complete work on the negotiations

at lower cost.

The signatories large economies and high share of international trade ensure that the proposed agreements will
be felt globally. The European Union, United States, and TPP economies account for 61 percent of the worlds GDP, and import 43 percent of

The development of high-standard, comprehensive

trade agreements under the direction of the U.S. would create the
template for global trade and regulatory policy. To remain competitive in the worlds
all goods exported in 2013.

largest consumer markets, export-dependent countries such as China would have to adapt to the standards agreed upon by the European
Union and United States, and among the TPP countries. China is attempting to influence the outcome of the trade agreements by promoting
an alternative plan with different set of standards, termed the Free-Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTTAP). This trade agreement would include
the 12 TPP countries, as well as China, Russia, and 7 other countries located in the Pacific region, as illustrated below: Commerce and
capitalism can only thrive in a fair market, and that is why the United States should pursue both agreements, adequately safeguarding
American interests and avoiding the advice of centrally planned or otherwise corrupt states. The TPP agreement has left the option for
additional members in the Asia-Pacific region to join.

America would benefit from signing a

high-standard TPP

and then bringing China into the fold, rather than giving China the opportunity to present a trade
agreement that primarily fits Chinas agenda. Free trade should be Congresss first order of business. Otherwise, it will have squandered an
opportunity to expand employment and set global standards for international trade.

TPA is necessary to pass TPP, which is crucial for Latin

American economic stability
Desert News 12/05/14 (A website that reports stuff. In our opinion: U.S., Latin America benefit
from Trans-Pacific Partnership trading ; http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865617065/US-Latin-America-benefit-fromTrans-Pacific-Partnership-trading.html?pg=all ; DOA 12/12/14)
As economies dip and slowly recover, its nice to see an example of fiscally diverse countries working together to improve global economies.

The

(TPP)

Trans-Pacific Partnership
has quickly become one of the largest trade opportunities in history, one that indicates a bright
future in overseas trade for the Americas. The Atlantic Council, behind new chairman Jon Huntsman Jr., advocates for TTP and other
advantageous trade options in an effort to expand trade between world powers. TTP is an economic potpourri, having attracted advanced
industrial countries like the U.S. and Japan as well as developing countries like Vietnam. In the 10 years since its creation, TPP has gained
remarkable traction in the global trade game. It originally started between four countries: Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. A decade
later, it is now the second-largest trade option for the U.S., providing opportunities for a dozen countries to negotiate flexible free-trade

currently represents 40 percent of

global GDP, 26 percent of global trade and 40 percent of U.S. trade. All
of this after only a decade. But as beneficial as TPP is for the U.S., the benefits explode off the charts
for our neighbors down south Latin America. Latin America still exports the
agreements. To illustrate how effective the trade option is: TPP

majority of goods and raw materials to the U.S., but since 2000, Latin America has seen trade with Asia increase by a

Due to the vast benefits of TPP for Latin

America, no region has more at stake in TPP than
Latin America . For instance, even if TPP fails in the long run, the U.S.

whopping 590 percent.

still has other trade agreements, such as the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership
(TTIP) to fall back on. Latin America has no such Plan B . Trade between Latin America and Asia
most likely thrives due to similarities in standards of living between the regions, namely wages. As wages become more comparable (Asian
wages are decreasing to become more like those of Latin America), trading in commodities and manufacturing makes sense for both regions.

Global trade is difficult because of fluctuations and diversity in

economies. The Deseret News reported economic problems associated with current members of TPP, such as Japan. The island
country recently announced a countrywide recession. Chinas economy is also slowing down,
which affects the rest of the world economy. Like Japans economy, Chinas has slowed in part
because of a major shift toward consumer spending that hasnt paid off. In order for TPP to continue to succeed, it needs three things:
advocacy about the plans geoeconomic benefits, more geographical balance and clear communication about long-term goals. Countries that
want to get involved need to know the direction TPP is taking and that they wont get tangled in a web of overlapping bilateral deals. All of the
countries involved need to be on the same page regarding rules on how their specific economies operate on domestic and foreign levels. Most
of the countries involved already prefer a free-market approach to trade and investment with rules to help keep them in line. By the end of the

President Obamas administration needs Congress to pass the

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) associated with economic trade. This would
year,

require the Senate Finance Committee, of which Orrin Hatch will be the next chairman, to release a new TPA draft bill that would encourage

, it comes down to
Republicans and Democrats working together. They should, as everyone involved
partisan support. In order for these very different countries to work together in trade

stands to benefit from participating in TPP.

TPA key to competitiveness

Bryan Riley, senior analyst and Anthony B. Kim, senior policy analyst,

Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of Trade Promotion Authority

Renewal, ISSUE BRIEF n. 3912, Heritage Foundation, 416 13,
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-trade-freedom-keyobjective-of-trade-promotion-authority-renewal
The Obama Administration often seems to regard trade as a zero-sum
game of capturing value that would otherwise go elsewhere. However, trade
liberalization is about creating and adding value, capitalizing on
competitive advantages, and further harnessing the power of
freedom and choice. Trade has been an integral part of Americas
extraordinary economic progress over the past decades. Since 1929, trade
volume has increased from less than 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product
(GDP) to around 30 percent, while real U.S. GDP per person increased from
$8,000 to more than $43,000. This progress faces continuing threats,
mainly from special-interest groups that malign free trade in an
attempt to seek protection from competition at the expense of
everyone else. Some lawmakers have even viewed TPA legislation as a
vehicle to address the perceived costs of free trade for the U.S. economy.
However, using TPA renewal to redress the suspected costs of trade
is an ill-advised idea. TPA is an instrument that not only enables
America to secure increased access to overseas markets but also
provides the unique opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its own
barriers and advance economic freedom. Congress and the
President can help the American economy by removing barriers that
limit its competitiveness . With open trade and investment ensured, the
interplay of low tax rates and efficient regulations could effectively
enhance Americas economic freedom. Entangling TPA with a
protectionist agenda, on the other hand, would not serve Americas interests
in the global market.

Impacts

Asian War
Thats key to dampen Asian power competition
Scott Miller, Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Paul Nadeau, program manager and
research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, 1/31/ 14, TPP Is More than a
Trade Agreement, csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
The White House needs TPA because the TPP is the pivot to Asia. The
military realignment is important, but the repositioning is mostly relative, driven
by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and economic
realignment that aims to improve cooperation and integration
among the United States and East Asia. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this
explicitly in her Foreign Policy article, Americas Pacific Century, when she wrote [O]pen
markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented
opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the
ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer
base of Asia. Military presence was only one out of the six courses of
action that Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the TPP is arguably the key
ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships with rising
powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions;
expanding trade and investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing health care reform
were President Obamas key domestic policy victories, then the Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where
he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too nascent to
determine how far reaching they will become).

there are tensions among Asias large powers , and the United States
is likely the single entity that can influence the situation . The United States
and Asia need each other and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally,
economically, and politically help bind them together. The Members of
Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into
legislation. Trade negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But
TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many in Asia are already concerned that the Pivot
was only superficial and that United States is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain
framed as a trade issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that,
the Administration risks putting TPP on ice for 2014.
Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the
TPP as a strategic goal that will be the cornerstone of the Asia Pivot .
This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics who
argue that the Pivot lacks substance. Moreover, it would give the President an
Today,

achievable goal in advance of his April trip to Asia.

Asia power competition is the most likely scenario for

nuclear war
Campbell et al 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr.

Campbell served in several capacities in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief
Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of

the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and was
the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding
CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A.
Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in
International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international
relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and International
Institute for Strategic Studies, The Power of Balance: America in iAsia June 2008,

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_J
une08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with
unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in foreign
currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global
economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial giants such as
Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar
and Range Rover. Chinas Lenovo bought IBMs personal computer
We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of iAsia
to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian nations are
pursuing their interests with real power in a period of both
tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia
includes increasing economic interdependence and a flowering of
multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some
degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the worlds most successful
manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in
everything from finance to nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations
are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But
the continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is
alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with historic
suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war
in Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental degradation to
violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons,
Asian nations have much to worry about. Inequality: Within nations and
between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in
the world. Impoverished minorities in countries like India and China,
and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as
backward as Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique
challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States
is to both protect American interests and help iAsia realize its potential and
avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian
financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment
banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse
unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn
creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40
percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half
of worlds available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil
are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity
prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals.
Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50
people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and suspicions
rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors
every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a

cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and

extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable global appetite
for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse
effects of global climate change; the primary source of nuclear
proliferation; and the most likely theater on Earth for a major
conventional confrontation and even a nuclear conflict. Coexisting
with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, nontraditional threats like terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict,
which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor
decision-making .

Russian War
TPP Solves Russia aggression
Stephen DeMaura, 4/5/14, Time to Counter Russia with Trade Expansion,
townhall.com/columnists/stephendemaura/2014/04/05/time-to-counter-russiawith-trade-expansion-n1818946/page/full
President Obama returned from a major overseas trip last week where he met with
many of our European Union (EU) allies at a moment when Russia continues to flex
its muscle in the region, recently sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on a high-profile
visit to the newly-annexed territory in Crimea. Its clear that the need for seamless
cooperation between the US and the Europe Union is paramount . And
theres no better way to shore up the transatlantic alliance than by
strengthening our economic ties. Already, trade between the United States and the EU
accounts for more than 30 percent of trade around the world and generates nearly $3 billion every day. An
agreement currently under negotiation between the US and the EU the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) would remove even more trade barriers and foster closer trade ties
between the two continents. The President reiterated his support for this agreement in Brussels last week;
unfortunately, he has yet to publicly stand up to some of his biggest political allies who are working to hold

In order to get TTIP and other pending trade

agreements moving, the President must be granted Trade Promotion Authority
(TPA) by an act of Congress. TPA has been granted to every president since the 1930s, until it expired in
up TTIP here at home.

2007. Congress now has a unique opportunity now to pass a retooled TPA for the 21st Century, and
bringing the EU and US closer to counter Russian expansionism only makes that aim more important.
Democrats in Congress are some of the most vocal voices in opposition to TPA and trade expansion in
general. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this year that everyone would be well-advised not
to push this right now. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi went even further, calling pending TPA
legislation out of the question. Why would Congressional Democrats seek to slow-track or shoot down
legislation that would increase trade with some of our closest allies and create new jobs? One reason is the
strong-arm tactics of Big Labor. Union bosses believe their position will be weakened by expanded
international trade and they are holding Democratic politicians beholden to their wishes. Just recently,
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka
criticized pending trade agreements with the EU and Asia in a speech at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress (CAP), daring to claim that TPA has failed to evolve with our complex and dynamic
global economy. In fact, the bipartisan TPA legislation currently before Congress aims to bring our trade

We
cannot allow petty politics to sabotage a crucial geopolitical
moment. We need to send an unequivocal message to Vladimir Putin
and the Russian oligarchs that the United States and the European Union
are more committed than ever to our transatlantic alliance. Fostering
closer trade ties a clear path to doing just that, as well as stimulating our
policies into the 21stCentury and its Big Labors archaic protectionism that belongs to the past.

economy and creating new and better jobs along the way. Its time for Democrats in Congress to see

Passing TPA means more American

solidifying our position as the worlds trade leader and sends a
very important message to the Russians, which are goals we can all get behind.
beyond their next election and stand up to Big Labor bosses.
jobs,

Russian aggression causes nuclear war

Blank 9 Dr. Stephen Blank is a Research Professor of National Security

Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, March
2009, Russia And Arms Control: Are There Opportunities For The Obama
Administration?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub908.pdf

Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or
intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of retaliation.168 Given
a multipolar world structure with little ideological rivalry among major
powers , it is unlikely that they will go to war with each other .
Rather, like Russia , they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their
own sphere of influence and use nuclear instruments towards
that end . However, wars may well break out between major powers
and weaker peripheral states or between peripheral and
semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence of
the means of crisis prevention, the visible absence of crisis management
mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that asymmetric wars might give
them the victory or respite they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of
periphery and semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political
maneuvering. Since war remains a political option, these states may
find it convenient to exercise their military power as a means for
achieving political objectives. Thus international crises may increase
in number . This has two important implications for the use of WMD .
First, they may be used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in
Russias case , to achieve intra-war escalation controlauthor170)
to the striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances in military
capabilities are significant; and second, crises increase the
possibilities of inadvertent or accidental wars involving WMD .171
Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that are expanding their
nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon
world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing consensus and use
their weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought,
but as offensive weapons to threaten other states and deter nuclear
powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative security and strengthened
international military-political norms of action, or for individual national
egotism will critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if
they drift away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security],
the consequences could be profound . At the very least, the effective
functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order , such as the
special responsibility of the great powers in the management of the
interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under the
aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired . Armed
with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial costs in blood
or money on an intervening force or the populaces of the nations marshaling
that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to collective
security operations , undermine the credibility of alliance
commitments by the great powers , [undermine guarantees of extended
deterrence by them to threatened nations and states] extend alliances of

their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on their neighbors

or their own people .172

General Trade Impacts

Trade collapse causes war
Griswold 7(Daniel, April 20, Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous
Cycle, Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade
Policy Studies., http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/tradedemocracy-peace-virtuous-cycle)

The world has somehow become a more peaceful place. A little-noticed

headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, War declining worldwide, studies say. In
2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of

armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past
half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them
now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes latest report found that 2005
marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war
with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death
toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, The
number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a
year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number. Current estimates of
people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and
from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good newsthe end of

expanding trade and

globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world
peace. Far from stoking a World on Fire, as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable
book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening
effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and
globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a
moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward
democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each othe r.
Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the worlds
countries today are democraciesa record high. Some studies have cast doubt
the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among thembut

on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While its true that democracies rarely if ever war
with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies.
We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by

A second and even more potent way that trade has

promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As
national economies become more intertwined with each other, those
nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized
world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but
also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage
on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The
non-democracies.

2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on Economic Freedom and
Peace by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the
propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that
economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country
will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that,
Making

economies freer translates into making countries more

peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times
as conflict prone as the most free. Effect of Economic Freedom on Militarized
Interstate Disputes By the way, Dr. Gartzkes analysis found that economic freedom was a far more

A third
reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations
to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than
conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is
important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.

increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial

assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by
armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important
in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national
borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them
peacefully by trading away what they can

Trade is key to peace--empirics

Boudreaux 6(Donald J., November 20, Want world peace? Support free
trade., Professor Donald J. Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of
Economics at George Mason University, The Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html)

Trade does indeed

promote peace. During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State
Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight:

University of New York at Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his
most recent paper on the topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive
amount of research on trade, war, and peace. They find that "the

overwhelming evidence
indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign investment. The
greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or
the more that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of
war between America and those countries with which it has
investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy
implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade
and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world."

Trade independently solves war

Boudreaux 06 (Donald J. Boudreaux was the Chairman of the Department of Economics at GMU. Currently he is the

Director of the Centerf or the Study of Public Choice. He was recently President of the Foundation for Economic Education. Want World Peace?
Support Free Trade from The Christian Science Monitor. 10/20/06. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html July 8, 2014.)

Baron de Montesquieu observed that "Peace is the natural

effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become
reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the
other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on
their mutual necessities." If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade
promotes peace, then protectionism a retreat from open trade
raises the chances of war. Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the
wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promote peace.
Back in 1748,

During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York at
Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the
topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on

"the overwhelming evidence indicates that

trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign investment. The greater
the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more
that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war
between America and those countries with which it has investment
relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy implication
of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing
barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful
world." Columbia University political scientist Erik Gartzke reaches a similar but more general
conclusion: Peace is fostered by economic freedom. Economic freedom
certainly includes, but is broader than, the freedom of ordinary
people to trade internationally. It includes also low and transparent rates of taxation, the
trade, war, and peace. They find that

easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses, the lightness of regulations on labor, product, and

credit markets, ready access to sound money, and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources

Professor Gartzke ranks countries on

an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10, with 1 being very unfree
and 10 being very free. He then examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. His
findings are powerful: Countries that rank lowest on an economic-freedom
index with scores of 2 or less are 14 times more likely to be
involved in military conflicts than are countries whose people enjoy
significant economic freedom (that is, countries with scores of 8 or higher). Also
important, the findings of Polachek and Gartzke improve our understanding of the
long-recognized reluctance of democratic nations to wage war
against one another. These scholars argue that the so-called democratic peace is really the
capitalist peace. Democratic institutions are heavily concentrated in
countries that also have strong protections for private property
rights, openness to foreign commerce, and other features broadly
consistent with capitalism. That's why the observation that any two
democracies are quite unlikely to go to war against each other might
reflect the consequences of capitalism more than democracy . And that's
just what the data show. Polachek and Seiglie find that openness to trade is much more
effective at encouraging peace than is democracy per se. Similarly, Gartzke
discovered that, "When measures of both economic freedom and
democracy are included in a statistical study, economic freedom is
about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent
conflict." These findings make sense. By promoting prosperity, economic
freedom gives ordinary people a large stake in peace. This
prosperity is threatened during wartime. War almost always gives
government more control over resources and imposes the burdens
of higher taxes, higher inflation, and other disruptions of the
everyday commercial relationships that support prosperity. When
commerce reaches across political borders, the peace-promoting
effects of economic freedom intensify. Why? It's bad for the bottom
line to shoot your customers or your suppliers, so the more you
trade with foreigners the less likely you are to seek, or even to
tolerate, harm to these foreigners. Senators-elect Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio and Jim
Webb (D) of Virginia probably don't realize it, but by endorsing trade protection, they
actually work against the long-run prospects for peace that they so fervently desire.
by markets rather than by government officials.

2NC AT: Democrats

Democratic opposition will fall from a continue
presidential push.
Lawson 12/3/14 (Alex, Obama Vows To Work On Reviving Fast-Track Trade Deals,
http://www.law360.com/articles/601265/obama-vows-to-work-on-reviving-fast-track-trade-deals)

Renewing the lapsed authority is a top priority for Republicans

and

is

therefore a likely area of cooperation for the president and the GOPcontrolled Congress beginning next year. But that also means Obama must put out
fires within the Democratic ranks.
The first step in that process, according to Obama, is to convince his own
party to be more open-minded about the real benefits of trade rather
than trotting out the same fears of wage stagnation and outsourcing that dominated the debates over
China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement talks.
Part

of the argument that Im making to Democrats is, dont fight

the last war, Obama said. If you want to ... locate in a low-wage country, with low labor standards
and low environmental standards, there hasnt been that much preventing you from doing so.

Obama said that he would also be coordinating with labor

and environmental leaders to convince them to lend support to the
most prominent U.S. trade negotiating effort, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific
In that vein,

Partnership.
Ironically, if we are able to get Trans-Pacific Partnership done, then were actually forcing some countries
to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption,
increase intellectual property protection, he said. Those who oppose these trade deals, ironically, are
accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is expected to assume the gavel on the Senate Finance Committee in the
next Congress, welcomed Obama's comments on the future of the trade agenda, and TPA renewal in
particular.
If past experience has taught us anything, its that

we need presidential leadership to

get TPA over the finish line , Hatch said in a statement. The presidents
influence, particularly among members of his own party , will be a
vital component to congressional efforts."

Democrats will get on board reids out and the rest of

the leadership need to ally with the president for the next
election. PC is key thats Hicky.
Republicans are driving a trade as a wedge issue which
will force Obama to get dems on board.
Guida 12/30/14 (Victoria, Politico, The GOP's divisive trade play,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html)

Obamas executive action on immigration might be

driving Republicans to distraction, but they have a wedge issue of
their own to stick to Democrats : trade .
And with control of both houses of Congress and 2016 on the horizon, the newly
ascendant GOP isnt likely to waste any time exploiting it.
President Barack

When asked at his post-reelection press conference about where he thought Republicans and Democrats
could work together, trade was one of the first things incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) mentioned. Other Republican leaders have echoed that sentiment.
It happens to be, in their judgment, good policy and also something they can achieve results on by
working with the White House, National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said. And its
something thats going to irritate the left wing of the Democratic Party. How can you go wrong with that?

Republicans know liberal Democrats have issues with global free

trade deals, which they say can give rise to decreased wages and job losses. So when the GOP
throws its wholehearted support behind President Barack Obamas
massive trade agenda including efforts to conclude talks on the largest trade deals in U.S.
history, covering nations across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans , they do so knowing it will
pit the left wing of the Democratic party against their leader in the
White House and his allies among the dwindling number of tradefriendly New Democrats in Congress.
This dynamic might not change in 2016, when Hillary Clinton launches into full presidential campaign
mode. As a senator, Clinton voted for trade agreements with Oman, Singapore and Chile, but against the
Central American Free Trade Agreement, so she could well support at least some of the remaining parts of
Obamas trade agenda when the elections roll around.
Those elections could shift into full gear just as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership goes to Congress
for its approval a deal that would overhaul and eclipse the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Meanwhile, the 2016 elections could be bruising to the GOP in the Senate, with Republicans defending two
dozen seats 14 more than Democrats have to protect. Seven of those GOP seats are in states Obama
won in 2008 and 2012 (New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania), and two
more are in states the president carried just in 2008 (North Carolina and Indiana).

On the Democratic side, only two senators could be vulnerable : outgoing

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, and Michael Bennet, of Colorado.
Some analysts believe the GOP could try to put Democrats on the
defensive in the run-up to 2016 by forcing them into difficult votes that could cost them support
among labor and environmental groups in their base.
The fact that its an issue that divides Democrats is icing on the cake, said William Galston, a former
policy adviser under President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The powerful AFL-CIO has been among the harshest critics of pending fast track trade legislation, though
it has been more coy about its positions on a pair of blockbuster trade deals with 11 other Asia-Pacific

Obama will
need lawmakers to pass a bill allowing him to fast-track the
agreements through Congress with straight up-or-down votes and no
amendments.
countries and the 28 nations of the European Union. To get those deals though Congress,

The labor group has been on the warpath against that legislation, also called trade promotion authority,
and is spending money on an ad campaign opposing it: Fast track. It means forgetting working
Americans, reads one of the ads in the Washington metros Capitol South station.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are also against the legislation because of the potential
regulatory changes that could be included in the Asia-Pacific trade deal, which they fear could roll back
environmental protections.
With the backing of these groups, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan
(D-Wis.), among others, have been holding rallies and sending letters to assemble an anti-fast track army.
They stand on the opposite side of the pro-trade New Democrat Coalition, which is losing 12 members
because of defeats in the midterm election and retirements.
The Democrats in the House generally represent really safe Democrat seats, so if Im a Democrat, Im not
worried about Republicans coming in and knocking me out, one congressional staffer said in describing
the influence of labor. Im worried about someone challenging me from the left. This dynamic has
become even more pronounced as moderate Democrats have lost their seats, the aide said.
Galston said Democratic support for trade will boil down to an intense local calculus.
[Democratic members of Congress] are going to ask, Is this on balance beneficial or not to my district?
Galston said. If the answer is no, that doesnt mean some of them wont vote in favor of it anyway, but
theyll sure think twice. A more open trading regime is not equally friendly to all sectors of the economy
and certainly not to all congressional districts.
Meanwhile, Republicans could push to alienate Democrats on trade to secure more funding from big
business groups with deep pockets, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of
Manufacturers, which are big supporters of free trade deals.
Its a question of fundraising, one Democratic adviser said, which is why youll ultimately see a strong
Republican vote in both chambers on [a] TPP deal and TPA [trade promotion authority], whenever that
occurs. And that dynamic also means that Democrats with strong labor backing are more likely to oppose
the trade agenda.

For its part,

the Obama administration is aiming to get half the

Democrats in the Senate on board with its plans,

the Democratic adviser said.

2NC PC Key
Obamas PC key for passage of TPA- his leadership can
avoid partisanship
Sur 1/7 Debnil Sur (Columnist for the Stanford Daily; double majoring
at Stanford c/o 2017 in Computer Science and Public Policy), Free
trade: A site of potential bipartisanship? 1/7/15.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/07/trade-a-site-of-potentialbipartisanship/
President Obama must
capitalize upon his sudden strength and use it to broker a deal as
soon as possible. With the Republican Senate poised to unveil legislation in coming weeks, the
window of opportunity has arrived. International officials from TPP countries have stated that the first
six months of 2015 will be critical to finish up talks and hammer out
details. Thus, it is imperative to pass domestic legislation sooner, rather than later. Effective
leadership and support from the President can avoid election year
politics and the partisanship that has plagued contemporary
Congress. On the other hand, starting the year by picking the wrong fight, such as environmental
With both foreign policy and the economy turning the corner,

conservation or health care, could destroy compromise and tank the presidents political capital altogether.

Trade promotion authority (TPA)

could provide a sustainable basis for Americas economic health and
international relations. The ball is in the Presidents court its up to
him to play it correctly.
A new year provides new opportunities for compromise.

Obamas PC is key for TPA to passthis is key for TPP

Hankla 1-5 (Charles Hankla Associate Professor of Political
Science at Georgia State University 1/5/15 Updating fasttrack is key to getting a trade deal in 2015
http://theconversation.com/updating-fast-track-is-key-to-gettinga-trade-deal-in-2015-35138)
With the resounding Republican victory in Novembers midterm elections, most
pundits are despairing that Congress and President Barack Obama will find any areas for
cooperation in the coming two years. If there is a potential bright spot of mutual
interest, though, many believe it must be in international trade. Despite
the reluctance of Democrats in Congress, the president is in the process of
negotiating two sweeping trade deals, one with Europe and another with Asia.

Perhaps, the thinking goes, Obamas support for open trade will find a partner in a Congress controlled by
free-market Republicans, allowing Americas trade agenda to move forward at a rapid clip. However, while

bipartisan agreement does appear more likely in trade than in more

contested policy areas such as immigration, the road will not be easy. Significant impediments remain to a
deal between the White House and Republicans, and its not clear these can be ironed out to open the way
for progress. A fast track on trade The current trade impasse took form last January, when President
Obama formally asked Congress to grant him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as fast-track.
In essence, fast-track allows the White House to negotiate a trade deal and then get an up-or-down vote in
Congress. This delegation of power has been a tool used by most presidents since its creation in 1974, and
the White House considered it critical to moving forward with ongoing trade negotiations. The first of these
negotiations, to create the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), is set to eliminate key trade barriers between the
United States and 11 Asian countries, including Japan. The second, called the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP), could be of even greater significance. It would merge the worlds two
largest economies, the United States and the European Union, into a more deeply interdependent trading

zone. No sooner had the president asked Congress for TPA, however, than opposition began to build,
putting both TTIP and TPP in jeopardy. Perhaps the most influential naysayer was President Obama loyalist
Harry Reid, Democrat and outgoing majority leader of the Senate, who undoubtedly feared that fast-track
approval would hamper his partys chances at the polls. A bipartisan bill to extend fast track was
introduced but quickly foundered on a lack of enthusiasm from all sides. Reasons for optimism Now that
the midterms are over and Republicans have retaken control of the Senate ,

might the way be

open for an agreement on trade? There is at least one reason to be
optimistic: trade is among the few areas where one can still find
some agreement across the aisle. Republicans, who tend to
represent corporate and financial interests, are already more
amenable to free trade, while labor-backed Democrats are more
likely to oppose it. But these party-based differences are not the
whole story, and thats where there could be common ground.

PC is key for TPA

Waguespack 1-5 (Stephen Waguespack 1/5/15 Center
Stage For Free Trade
The president has recently signaled that he wants to aggressively
push Congress for fast track authority and trade agreements this year, surprising

some of his critics and frustrating some of his traditional allies in organized labor for his changed position
on this topic. In 2008, during a Democratic presidential candidate debate, then candidate Obama made it
clear he would use the threat of opting out of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) all together in
order to impose restrictions pushed by environmental and organized labor groups. However, more recently,
he gave a speech to a group of U.S. CEOs and said, Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are

his position
on free trade could produce immediate results. Republican leadership
and the president are publicly agreeing on the need to act quickly on
accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers. The evolution of

legislation to grant fast track approval of trade deals by Congress and pass a massive Asia-Pacific trade
pact and larger agreement with the European Union that would explode exports to these regions.
According to a recent Politico article, the Asia-Pacific pact would cover about 40 percent of the worlds
gross domestic product and about a third of global trade, while the legislation needed to pass trade

Fast track
authority has been a goal of many free trade advocates for year s
promotion authority could be a vehicle for several other free trade agreements.

because it empowers the U.S. to negotiate aggressive trade agreements and bring them to Congress for a
cleanup or down vote. Organized labor has typically opposed this type of legislation because they want to

The stalemate
has held back U.S. trade policy for decades and resolving this one
issue alone could open an unprecedented era of free trade. Louisiana can
manipulate any negotiated trade agreement through their supporters in Congress.

benefit greatly from this type of break from conventional wisdom. According to the World Trade Center of
New Orleans, Louisiana is currently sixth among U.S. exporters and is rapidly closing the gap on fifth
ranked Illinois. Louisiana is out performing the national export growth rate by 4.32 percent, and accounted
for 3.87 percent of the $1.208 trillion in total U.S. exports last year through the third quarter. Petroleum
based products continue to be a leading export market for Louisiana, accounting for roughly 42 percent of
our exports, but other strong markets like agriculture and chemicals continue to diversify our portfolio at
an impressive rate. Primary metal manufacturing and aerospace equipment exports are on the rise, with
the latter being supported by a new 82,300-square-foot Bell Helicopter assembly facility in Lafayette. Few
states stand to benefit as much as we do from an aggressive approach to free trade in Congress this year.
Conventional wisdom argues against it happening. The odds favor a year filled with finger pointing and
name calling in Washington, D.C., but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong before. Carly Fiorina,
the former chief executive officer at HP, once said, To build a great company, which is a CEOs job,
sometimes you have to stand up against conventional wisdom. The same is true for leading a nation.

The president has signaled he is ready to work with Republicans and stand up

against attacks by organized labor to aggressively support free trade. Conventional wisdom says it wont
happen, but history shows it can.

The stars have aligned, but the deal isnt guaranteed -- PC

is key
Landler & Weisman 12/31/14 (Mark & Jonathan, The Boston Globe Undaunted by
the odds, Obamas trade chief backs 12-nation deal,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/12/31/undaunted-odds-obama-trade-chief-backs-nationdeal/QdK11mLJfisfvQ3lfDEjiN/story.html)

to members of Congress, Obamas trade agenda has been waiting in

the wings for so long that the promises are beginning to ring hollow .
Still,

Efforts to grant Obama trade promotion authority once known as fast-track authority have gone
nowhere.

the political stars have aligned . Republican control of the

Senate has elevated pro-trade lawmakers to key positions, and the
international negotiations themselves have progressed.
But the deals completion is not guaranteed . Republicans inclined to
give the president trade-negotiating authority are still seething at
his executive action deferring deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants.
Democrats may be the bigger problem. Froman has met dozens of times with
Froman insists

Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means

Levin said he wants to work with the

administration on the partnership. But hes not about to let Obama
negotiate the partnership on his own, then present it to Congress for an up-or-down
Committee, which has jurisdiction on trade.

vote.

TPA has good prospects but political capital is necessary

to GOP flip floppers and hardline democrats on board.
Maruyama & Kyle 12/18/14 (Warren & Robert, The Hill, Republican control of Senate
boosts prospects for TPA and TPP, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/227449republican-control-of-senate-boosts-prospects-for-tpa-and)
In short,

despite TPAs improved prospects, the bill remains a work in

progress and could easily unravel . To pass TPA in the House and
Senate, and get over the 60-vote threshold to avoid a Senate
filibuster, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats will be
required. While Republicans are likely to provide the majority of the
votes , particularly in the House, at least some Democrats will be necessary
in both chambers.

As a result,

both sides likely will have to make

accommodations . However, both sides remain wary of each others

potential demands. The Republicans are concerned that Wyden will
seek far-reaching changes to Baucus-Camp-Hatch that would generate opposition within the
Republican Caucus. For their part, Democratic staffers are worried that House
and Senate Republicans will try to jam a partisan trade bill through
the Committee and floor processes, as occurred with the House-passed version of the
Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, or weaken the so-called May 10 agreement between the Bush
administration and Congressional Democrats on the treatment of labor and environmental obligations in
U.S. FTAs. If either scenario happens,

the process could go off the rails again .

Obamas immigration announcement represents a new complication ,
which could delay or upset talk of bipartisan cooperation. Finally, TPA will require
leadership and support from the President. While Cabinet members have begun
meeting at the White House to discuss TPA strategy, a bill as complex and politically

controversial as TPA will require a major

public

effort by the

president , and a well-organized and coordinated campaign by the US

business community and the White House. In sum, while there is an opening for
TPA (and TPP), the process could easily stall, in which case the
responsibility for getting them done could slip to the next
president.

*in 1NC growth impact PC key to deals for trade policy

his power to persuace is important
Boustany & Zollick 12/28/14

Top of the Docket

TPA top of the docket but controversial
Kaplan 12/30 (Make Trade Promotion Authority Into Jobs Promotion
Authority, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gilbert-b-kaplan/make-tradepromotion-auth_b_6392168.html, Former Deputy Assistant and Acting
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce,#jbear)
When Congress comes back to work early next year, Trade
Promotion Authority ("TPA") is likely to be high up on the
Congressional agenda, and it is something the President and
Congress can work together on. The basic concept of the law is
simple.

It provides that if the President and the United States Trade Representative bring back a trade deal with Asia (Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP), with Europe (Transatlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership or TTIP), or some other trade deal, Congress has to address it with an up-or-down vote within a set period of time, usually 90 days. They cannot try to amend the trade deal back here in
Washington, after U.S. negotiators have gotten the best deal they think they can. The law made a good deal of sense when trade deals were mainly about lowering tariffs.

No Senator

or Congressman would want to see a tariff protecting a big plant in

his or her district lowered

, and any trade deal would soon be encumbered with hundreds of amendments raising, or preventing the lowering of, many tariff

lines. So everyone in Congress just had to vote up or down on the deal, presumably looking at the greater good of the country, and not at their own parochial interests (imagine that!)

There is

also an argument that TPA is necessary because our foreign trading

partners would never make their last, best offers in negotiations if
they knew Congress could just amend the deal and ask for more
later on.

But Trade Promotion Authority may make a lot less sense given the complexity of current trade deals and the broad scope of their coverage.

TPP, for

example, has provisions covering intellectual property, state owned

enterprises, labor rights, environmental compliance,
pharmaceuticals, financial services, E-Commerce, and government
procurement, to name a few. How can a member of Congress be
expected to simply vote "up or down" on something like that? But t
bigger problem is the coexistence of the two sides of trade that the United States lives with, and the seeming inability of our trade agreements to deal satisfactorily with both of them

he

. On the

one hand, we have many great multinational companies and

breakthrough innovators who need a market of the whole world,
and who have regularly increased exports and maintained profits
because of the market opening trade deals have accomplished.

But on the

other side, we have a "Bleak House" of industries and workers that are creative, competent, cost conscious, and U.S. based, and are being subjected to unfair subsidies by foreign countries, minuscule wage rates at
competitors abroad, and surges of low priced imports into our market. Many of these latter industries are in the manufacturing sector. They may not have the unassailable market position and patent portfolio of a
company like Google or Apple. Yet they still merit a big place in our economy and the millions of workers they employ deserve that place too.

They are being

harmed because these trade agreements do not deal effectively

with the biases of so-called free trade or with unfair trade practices
The effects on the average U.S. worker are overwhelming. In addition to the loss of jobs, manufacturing wages have been declining. Do we need a manufacturing industry in this country? For at least three reasons
we definitely do. We do not want to be dependent on China or any other country for the basic manufactured goods we need to keep our economy going, such as steel, bearings, smartphones, computers,
semiconductors, auto parts, glass, textiles and many others.

Such dependency takes away our freedom, our

international clout, and our national security

. Secondly, manufacturing jobs, at least in the past, have been some of

the best in our country, paying excellent wages and benefits to middle class workers in a way most service jobs do not. And finally, having manufacturing industries is critical to staying at the cutting edge of R&D
and innovation.

If we don't make smart phones or computers here, we will lose

the R & D prowess related to these products

. The same pattern will be repeated for product after product and

technology after technology. Innovation is central to our economy (and to our identity as a people) and we cannot afford to lose it. So where are we now, and what do we need to do in any TPA bill to remedy the

We run a $300 billion

dollar trade deficit with China on manufactured goods, and over
$100 billion of that is in high technology products
situation? We are not in a good place. We have lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the United States and tens of thousands of factories.

. We have a $700 billion trade deficit with the world overall,

most of it in manufactured goods. And indeed we make almost no smart phones, computers, liquid crystal displays or many other high tech products in this country anymore. The TPA debate must begin with a
recognition that there are two sides to trade when it comes to U.S. manufacturers and workers, and our current trade policies and laws needs to deal with both. We need to open markets for exporters, but we also
need to understand the problems of indigenous U.S. manufacturers. And what do we need to do for them? Recognition of the problem will be a good start. And then some specific actions should be included in the
TPA legislation: 1) We need to develop and implement a national manufacturing policy with the goal of turning around the decline in our manufacturing sector and accomplishing significant revival. We do not have a
national manufacturing policy now. We need a Secretary of Manufacturing who will have the responsibility to reach that goal. 2) We need to create American industrial zones which will revive U.S. electronic
manufacturing. This will require careful planning with U.S. electronic companies, and significant investment to replace some of the input product manufacturing that we have already lost. Manufacturers in these
zones will be able to pay a VAT tax instead of income tax with respect to revenue from facilities in the zones, and the VAT will be rebated on exports, making products from the zones competitive internationally. 3)
All United States trade agreements currently being negotiated or to be negotiated in the future should be subjected to the test of whether they will increase the number of jobs in the United States and whether they
will increase the number of factories in the United States ("Plus Jobs/Plus Factories Trade"). 4) All of our trade agreements going forward must include a new negotiating objective, which is to make significant
industrial subsidies (over 5% by value) illegal, and not merely actionable after-the-fact. 5) Our trade agreements must address currency undervaluation (the largest industrial subsidy in history), and also provide
that trade remedies can be applied to off-set undervaluation if it continues despite commitments made in a trade agreement. With these additions to our trade policy and these kinds of commitments, we can begin
to make trade promotion authority into jobs promotion authority for many more American companies and many more American workers.

A/T Bipartisan Support

TPA is right now bipartisan: but more is need for passing
the bill- and TPA just helps all other trade bill in Congress
Beshudi 1/2/15(Trade big breakout year: Could 2015 be the

year of trillion-dollar deals Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/trade-outlook-2015113793.html#ixzz3OAoY2VNO ttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/tradeoutlook-2015-113793.html, Prior to joining POLITICO, he covered international
trade policy for Inside U.S. Trade, where he tracked down the latest news on
the Trans-Pacific Partnership from exotic locales such as Auckland, New
Zealand; Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia; and Leesburg, Va. Before writing about
anti-dumping, export controls and other trade subjects, Behsudi covered city
hall for the Frederick News-Post. He got his start in journalism chasing
crooked sheriffs and other crime-related news in the mountains of western
North Carolina for the Asheville Citizen-Times. #jbear)
The new Republican majority in Congress could turn 2015 into the
year of the trade deal. Republicans and President Barack Obama are
both eager to act on a massive Asia-Pacific deal,
legislation that would fast-track their approval by Congress all of which have a shot of moving next year. Story Continued Below

an even bigger agreement with the European Union and

So while many in

Washington are bracing for stalemates on issues as wide-ranging as

health care to immigration, the climate could be just right to move
the kind of bipartisan trade agreements not seen since NAFTA 20
years ago

. And with trillions of dollars at stake for both the domestic and global economies, trade could become a signature issue for both Republicans and the president as they look to claim

significant political victories. The temperature is rising, and I think, at least now, we have President Obama making very direct comments to support the trade agenda in a way that I hadnt seen in a long while,
said Mireya Solis, a senior fellow and Japan expert at the Brookings Institution.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement,

which would cover about 40 percent of the worlds gross domestic

product and about a third of global trade, is expected to get a huge
boost from the GOP takeover of the Senate, with Republicans eager
to pass legislation that would expedite congressional approval of
that and several other pacts.

But the

trade promotion authority

legislation, which would allow Obama to send the agreement to

lawmakers for an up-or-down vote with no amendments, could also
serve as a legislative vehicle for a slew of other trade bills that have
been waiting in the wings, including measures to renew tariff cuts
for developing nations, sub-Saharan Africa and U.S. manufacturers,
and to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

The last time Washington saw even a piece of this kind of trade action was

in 2011, when Congress approved the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade deals in rapid succession. The United States is also expected to finish negotiations on major expansion of an Information
Technology Agreement with nearly 80 countries that account for about 90 percent of world technology trade. The deal, which would eliminate duties on a long list of tech products, came within a hairs breadth of
concluding this month, but talks broke down after China refused to meet other countries demands for concessions on what goods to make duty-free. The White House will also press forward with the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union, a deal even bigger than the TPP, with European Union leaders earlier this month calling for the talks to finish up by the end of
2015. If all of that isnt enough, the U.S. is also pushing a new Environmental Goods Agreement with 13 other members of the World Trade Organization including China and the EU that compose about 86
percent of global trade. Talks on a new global services agreement and a bilateral investment treaty with China also will proceed. Not all of those will get done in 2015, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman
said. But we hope its a very productive year both in terms of negotiations and the legislative agenda. Before the biggest trade deals can get done, Obama will need to get lawmakers to give him the legislative

Also known as fast-track legislation, the Obamabacked TPA bill failed to advance earlier this year after outgoing
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to take it up out
authority to expedite their debate and passage.

of concern that a vote on the bill before the midterm elections would
put Democrats in the politically hazardous position of possibly
damaging their support from labor and environmental groups . Even
with the GOP majority in the Senate, the bill will still need
Democratic support to get through Congress, political observers
say.

The critical item here is the extent to which the president manages what Ive characterized as intraparty politics for Democrats, said Scott Miller, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and

International Studies. I think everybody has concluded, including myself, that this needs to be a bipartisan effort. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the White House needs to rally support from at
least 50 House Democrats to get the bill through the lower chamber no easy task given the post-election decline in the number of trade-friendly Democrats

. Underscoring

the difficulties the administration could face from intransigent

Democrats, the White Houses legislative abilities were tested just
this month when countering Democratic opposition to the massive
spending package, which barely squeaked through to passage

, Miller said. And

even if the votes on a fast-track bill can be had, this years stalled effort to get the legislation underway has left little time to spare, especially given that Democratic support could again grow more scarce once the
presidential campaign kicks into full gear toward the beginning of 2016. The point isnt lost on congressional trade leaders. Incoming Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said trade will top the
committees agenda in early 2015. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a Finance committee member and No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership as Republican Conference chairman, said the bill would likely be one of the first
pieces of legislation that emerges from the panel, which has jurisdiction over trade.

Trade supporters consider the bill vital to

ushering the Asia-Pacific trade talks toward their conclusion

because it would give other countries the confidence to resolve
major outstanding issues

such as access to medicines in developing nations, environmental protections and Japanese agricultural and U.S. auto tariffs

without having to worry that any hard-won concessions could be picked apart by congressional amendment. Bilateral talks between the U.S. and Japan on the tariffs issue have proved particularly troublesome for
the larger deal. In a breakthrough last month, Tokyo proposed more meaningful tariff cuts on U.S. beef, pork and dairy products, but the negotiations have since stalled again over the United States refusal to meet
Japans demands for lower auto parts tariffs. Theyre kind of stuck because nobodys sure where the United States bottom lines are, Miller said.

I think thats the

reason to get TPA, so all our trading partners know where the
Congress bottom line is, and at that point you conclude pretty
quickly

. The first six months of the year will be a critical window for finishing up the talks given the tight timeline, officials from the TPP countries have said. Even if the pact gets signed, it will still

have to go through a legal scrubbing and translation before a bill to ratify the deal can be introduced. That could mean that the implementing legislation would have to be drafted over the August recess with a view
to getting the bill to a vote before Thanksgiving, a former Senate Democratic aide speculated. If people are motivated to finish, they could do it really, really quickly assuming they got the votes, the former aide
said, adding that

the timing that the administration and others are talking

about strikes me as incredibly aggressive, but maybe not

impossible

. In 2011, the House and Senate were able to pass bills ratifying the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in a single day, the aide noted. But those agreements had

been concluded in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bushs administration and had a number of provisions renegotiated before the Obama administration brought them to Congress for a vote.

Aside from infusing the Asia-Pacific talks with new momentum, the
fast-track legislation could serve as a vehicle for packaging other
trade bills that have languished on their own.

A trade omnibus could include a renewal of the Generalized System

of Preferences, which cut tariffs on goods from developing countries and expired in July 2013, and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which would provide manufacturers with duty-free access to parts and supplies as long
as domestic industry isnt opposed and is considered an earmark by some Republicans. Business groups also would like a broader trade package to include legislation to overhaul customs procedures. TPA is the big
vehicle, said the former Senate aide. Its clear to me that they want to try to do it really early in the new Congress and the question is whether they can come together on a deal. Any trade package would likely
include a reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers displaced because of trade deals and is a priority for Democrats. The reauthorization of worker aid has
been necessary to secure Democratic support for trade legislation in the past. Meanwhile, the deadline for renewing the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which eliminates tariffs on a range of items from subSaharan African countries, is coming up in September. Programs like this or the GSP usually arent controversial on their own, but some Republicans notably retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have opposed
them if the lost tariff revenues arent made up elsewhere. Froman said the USTRs goal is to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis to move the agenda forward, including fast track, worker aid and trade
preference bills. There may be other issues out there of interest to Congress, Froman said. Ive heard mention of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, a customs-related bill. So there are a number of ideas.

Obama and McConnell will push for bipartisan support for

TPA
Washington Post 12/09/14 (A website that does stuff. Staying on track ;
http://westhawaiitoday.com/opinion/editorial/staying-track ; DOA 12/12/14)
The U.S. labor market continues to heal. Employers created more than 300,000 new payroll jobs in November, the vast majority of them in the
private sector. The unemployment rate remains at 5.8 percent, but there are signs that wages at last are growing again, at least modestly. Of
all major industrial economies, the United States is probably the healthiest. Indeed, if favorable trends such as low oil prices continue, the
economy might achieve the long-awaited escape velocity that would enable the Federal Reserve to end its zero interest-rate policy without

Obama

harming growth. For all the heat hes taking over other issues, from foreign policy to Ferguson, Mo., President
deserves more
credit for the economys soft landing after the Great Recession, even if he has to share it with the Fed and the boom in domestic energy

remarks in a meeting with the Business Roundtablelast week

showed that he has at least a couple of realistic ideas for how he and the new
Republican-controlled Congress can help consolidate the recovery in
2015. Specifically, Obama emphasized the prospects for a bipartisan
agreements on tax reform and international trade. Neither of those will
be easy, but the latter is probably more achievable in the short term
production. His

especially if Obama follows through on his pledge to take on folks in my own party and in my own constituency who oppose it. Republicans
already back legislation that would permit Congress to consider proposed free trade pacts with the European Union and 11 Pacific Rim nations
on an expedited basis, once Obamas team finishes negotiating them. This bill, known as trade promotion authority (TPA), would make it easier
for U.S. negotiators to complete the deals because it gives the other nations involved greater assurance that Congress cannot undermine what
the president agrees to. Yet until now, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., a long-time trade skeptic, has slow-walked TPA. By
contrast, Reids soon-to-be successor, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a TPA enthusiast. That makes sense generally and
especially with regard to these two proposed trade deals, which involve mainly high-wage, environmentally conscious trading partners such as

theres a
potential for agreement on trade. Still, TPA would take 60 votes to clear the Senate. If McConnell is
willing to deliver most or all of his Senate Republican majoritys votes for
this long-postponed Obama administration policy objective, and if
Obama reciprocates by pushing Democrats to join, Americans will see growth-enhancing
proof that bipartisanship is not dead.
Europe, Japan, Australia and Singapore. In a separate meeting with business leaders, McConnell expressed the view that

AT: Lame Duck / No Agenda

Obama is willing to spend political capital to get major
agenda items across
Inskeep 12/29/14 (Steven, NPR Columnist Interview with Obama, Morehead State
University in Kentucky, Despite Election Defeat, Obama Sees Room To Push His Agenda,
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/29/372537535/despite-election-defeat-obama-sees-room-to-push-his-agenda)

Obama has begun his administration's final phase the way he began
several other chapters of his presidency: seeking to recover from disaster.
President

Obama has moved vigorously since his party lost the Senate in
November. Without consulting Congress, he's offering legal status to millions of immigrants. He's
restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. Above all, he's striving to show he will not be
a lame duck .
The president took our questions the day before he left Washington for the holidays. The 40-minute, yearending interview offered clues to his final two years in the Oval Office, which is where we met. NPR is
publishing the conversation in three parts starting with Obama's efforts to govern alongside (though not
necessarily along with) a Republican Congress.
Something has changed since the campaign season, when Obama was delaying action on immigration,
fearing political damage. That led to our first question: Why execute these maneuvers now?

it's fair to think of him as a president who thinks he has

done what he had to do, and now is free to focus on what he wants
Obama added that

to do.
Obama is not entirely "liberated": He can't finish what he started alone. He'll
need acts of Congress to complete immigration reform, or to lift the Cuba
But

embargo. That barely begins the lengthy list of issues on which the president would like the help of
lawmakers if he could get it.

For six years, the GOP has been criticized for reflexively obstructing
Obama, and the president has been criticized for keeping his
distance from lawmakers. Could the president possibly do anything
to improve the situation?
Translation: I won't change anything specific, but hope my opponents'
interests compel them to change .

AT: Veto
Obama wont veto tax and global trade
Fox News 12/29/14 (Obama threatens to wield veto pen to counter GOP-led Congress,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/29/obama-threatens-to-wield-veto-pen-to-counter-gop-ledcongress/)

To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of twothirds of the House and Senate. Their majorities in both chambers
are not that large , so they would still need to persuade some
Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be
necessary , because there's overlap between his interests and those
of congressional Republicans.
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade
deals -- both issues where Obama and Republicans see at least
partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction surround Environmental Protection
Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration, which let
millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.

AT: Immigration
Immigration doesnt effect the TPA the GOP are pissed
about immigration, theyre on board for trade. Obama
needs to convince DEMS who are on the presidents side
about the issue.
Immigration is only driving the TPA debate allows the
GOP to have a wedge issue against the dems
Guida 12/30/14 (Victoria, Politico, The GOP's divisive trade play,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html)

President Barack Obamas executive action on immigration might be

driving Republicans to distraction, but they have a wedge issue of
their own to stick to Democrats: trade.
And

with control of both houses of Congress and 2016 on the horizon, the

newly ascendant GOP isnt likely to waste any time exploiting it .

When asked at his post-reelection press conference about where he thought Republicans and Democrats

trade was one of the first things incoming Senate Majority

Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) mentioned. Other Republican leaders have
could work together,

echoed that sentiment .

Immigration doesnt hurt PC only divides the GOP. Bill

wont pass till 2016.
Flakus 12/29/14 (Greg, Voice of America, US Immigration Reform Appears Unlikely in 2015.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-immigration-reform-appears-unlikely-/2577632.html)
Over the span of several U.S. election cycles, there have been calls for comprehensive immigration reform
to fix a system that people on both sides of the political spectrum agree is broken. But some observers say

Obamas recent executive action aimed at temporarily shielding some

may have doomed his longer-term
goal of forging a comprehensive agreement with Congress.
President Barack

undocumented foreigners from being deported

Obamas recent executive action allows some four million undocumented residents in the United States to
seek temporary legal status. But without Congressional approval, he cannot achieve comprehensive
immigration reform.
Republicans, who won majorities in both houses of Congress in Novembers midterm elections, replied
through Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he is acting on his
own," he said. "That is just not how our democracy works.
Tony Payan, Director of the Mexico Center at Rice Universitys Baker Institute, says Obama's action will
help a lot of people come out of the shadows and "essentially, become a little more integrated, in a legal,
formal sense, into the American economy and the American society.

it was also very counterproductive because I feel that it polarized

many of the Republicans who might have been willing to do
something on immigration , he added.
"But

While some undocumented immigrants support the move, others have mixed feelings about what they see
as a temporary fix.
Payan says there are concerns about applying for legal status under this temporary measure.
Once they surrender their personal information to the government, once the government knows who they
are and where they are and if the next president is not willing to extend that temporary protected status,
then they are going to be found very quickly and to be denied, he said.

Republicans say they want to secure the border with Mexico before approving other measures. The surge
of Central American immigrants at the Texas border earlier this year underscored this concern.

Republicans also oppose Democratic proposals for a so-called pathway to

citizenship, which they see as a ploy to increase the Democratic voter base.
But Houston immigration attorney Charles Foster says most immigrants seek legal resident status, not full
naturalization.
If you look at the last big legalization bill signed by President Reagan, in the last 40 years, barely 30
percent have even gotten around to applying for citizenship, he said.

the immigration issue has divided the Republican Party .

While the business community is very supportive of immigration
reform, there is a very vocal wing of the Republican Party that is
adamantly against everything, said Foster.
Foster says

Analysts say it may still be possible for the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama to
achieve agreement on at least some parts of immigration reform next year, but that

full reform is

more likely to be delayed until after the 2016 presidential election.

AT: Keystone
Keystone veto is a GOP opposed initiative, they want free
trade. Obama needs to focus on DEMS for TPA.
Keystone gets punted. GOP spends PC not Obama.
Colman 12/15/14 (Zack, Washington Examiner, Keystone XL: So will it finally get built?,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/keystone-xl-so-will-it-finally-get-built/article/2557281)
At this point,

it's not clear how Obama would benefit politically from

approving Keystone XL after years of waiting. Congressional
Republicans are unlikely to cut a deal to approve one of the
administration's priorities, such as raising the federal minimum wage, just to get
the pipeline through.
The same goes for the increasingly liberal Democratic Party.
Keystone XL backers in Alaska, Louisiana, North Carolina and Arkansas all pushed Obama to
approve the project. All of them lost their elections . A Democrat winning a
Senate race in any of those states appears unlikely for some time.
"I'm not sure what the president gains from it at this point, or what the Democratic Party gains in the long
term," Ebinger said. "I think

the president would like to punt this indefinitely ."

Delays are starting to annoy even Democrats who have opposed the project. Some are starting to speak out against what
they consider disingenuous climate change concerns posed by environmental groups.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said more progress on climate change is occurring in other arenas. He pointed to a nonbinding
agreement between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, a move
that would get the world's top two emitters on the same page for the first time.
"That dwarfs the concerns that we've heard now for a number of years on Keystone," Carper said recently. "I think the
other factor that's working here is we have waited for not months, but years, to get a decision on Keystone."
Hoeven said he thinks the legislative style that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., hopes to install
would smooth passage for a bipartisan Keystone XL bill that includes energy items important to some Democrats.
McConnell has hinted he would operate with an open amendment process, unlike current Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNev., who has blocked amendments.
"I fully expect that we will bring the bill to the floor, and there will be an open amendment process," Hoeven said. "Maybe
there will be some amendments offered that have some broad support to get over the 67-vote threshold."
That could lure other Democrats. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., for example, voted against the Keystone XL bill in November.
But given the chance to advance one of his top priorities for years he has advocated extending a tax structure known
as "master limited partnerships" to renewable energy he might vote for building the pipeline.
Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, explained that the senator opposed the Keystone XL bill partly because it was a
"straight authorization," leaving the door open to backing it in a different legislative vehicle.

Still, even attracting the three or four additional Democrats needed

to override a veto would be a challenge.

AT: Obamacare
Obamacare is a GOP v. Obama problem, trade is a dems v.
Obama problem. Doesnt apply/
Obama will just veto
The Guardian 12/29/14

(Obama: I will use veto pen and defend gains in healthcare and
environment, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/29/obama-veto-defend-healthcareenvironment-gop-senate)

I havent used the veto pen very often since Ive been in office, partly because
legislation that I objected to was typically blocked in the Senate even after Republicans took over the
House,
Hawaii.

Obama told NPR, in a conversation recorded before he left for a Christmas vacation in

Now

I suspect there are going to be some times where Ive got to

pull that pen out. And Im going to defend gains that weve made in
healthcare; Im going to defend gains that weve made on environment and clean air and clean
water.

The language of Obamas pledge echoes his 2014 State of the Union
address, in which he promised to use his pen and phone to overcome
an intransigent Congress and seek alternatives to legislation .
The Democrats loss of the Senate in Novembers midterm elections means Republicans are
likely to try to reverse that momentum and pass legislation. Such
legislation can be blocked by the White House , unless there is a two-thirds
majority in both chambers of Congress.

AT: Taxes
Taxes are cooperative areas between the GOP and dems.
Doesnt hurt the agenda.
Miller 12/3/14 (Jake, CBS News, Obama woos GOP on tax reform, immigration, free trade
deals, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-woos-gop-on-tax-reform-immigration-free-trade-deals/)

Obama outlined several "enormous areas" of potential

bipartisan compromise during a speech before the Business Roundtable on Wednesday, saying
he's prepared to deal with Republicans to make progress on tax reform , free trade ,
President

and immigration - assuming they're willing to deal with him.

The president told the organization, composed of the CEOs of some of

America's largest companies, that the U.S. has recovered from the financial
crisis of 2008 by many measures, and he said the degree of optimism among
foreign leaders about the future of the U.S. economy is "striking."
But he also said that "politics and ideological gridlock" are preventing
progress on other fronts that could help accelerate the economic recovery.
On corporate tax reform, a high priority among Republicans in Congress, the president
said he'd like to see a package that lowers rates and closes loopholes to create a more efficient tax
system. He said his administration's proposals have a "lot of overlap" with
a tax reform plan released earlier this year by House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Dave Camp, R-Michigan, and he also expressed some "openness" to a
repatriation tax holiday that would allow corporations to bring offshore assets back to the
U.S. without penalty.

There's "definitely a deal to be done,"

he said.

Even if tax reform is politically contentious, trade has

enough GOP support in the status quo.
Miller 12/3/14 (Jake, CBS News, Obama woos GOP on tax reform, immigration, free trade
deals, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-woos-gop-on-tax-reform-immigration-free-trade-deals/)

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly touted their desire to

work with the administration on tax reform, but they've questioned
the administration's appetite for compromise. Incoming Senate Majority Leader

Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, for example, underscored his desire to reform corporate taxes on Tuesday at
the Wall Street Journal CEO Council's annual meeting, but not if significant new revenues are part of the
deal. "We're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more
competitive," he said.

Obama also hailed fresh progress in negotiations over

two new free trade agreements prized by Republicans . He cited a "great
On Wednesday, Mr.

hunger" among Asian nations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and said that effort is "moving forward." He
also said his administration, led by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, is "reinvigorating
negotiations" with European countries on a Transatlantic trade deal.

Those deals have drawn fire from labor and environmental interests
on the left, but the president sought to blunt that criticism by arguing the deals
would mandate higher labor and environmental standards among nations participating in the free trade
zone. He stressed the need to finalize an agreement and "explain it to the public" so they more fully
understand the benefits.

Republicans have sounded more bullish on the prospects for

compromise on trade agreements than on some other issues . " At
least on trade, I think there's a potential for agreement ," McConnell said
Tuesday.

AT: NSA Reform

Passed. No new bills
Knickerbocker 12/28/14 (Brad, Electronic eavesdropping: NSA reports on its privacy
violations, http://news.yahoo.com/electronic-eavesdropping-nsa-reports-privacy-violations162929318.html)

The Senate last month blocked a bill to end bulk collection of

Americans' phone records by the NSA. Voting was largely along
party lines , with most Democrats supporting the bill and most
Republicans voting against it.
The legislation would have ended the NSA's collection of domestic
calling records, instead requiring the agency to obtain a court order each time it wanted to analyze
the records in terrorism cases, and query records held by the telephone
companies. In many cases the companies store the records for 18
months.

AT: States = No Backlash

This doesnt effect the DA
1) The plan isnt popular in every state, states that
would backlash would still require substantial
wrangling by the president
2) Congress people vote against matters passed by
states all the time, it would still require large
investment of PC
3) Timeframe government has to legalize before the
states do still costs PC to act
American Civil Procedure: A Guide to Civil Adjudication in US Courts, Edited by John Bilyeu Oakley,
Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, and Vikram D. Amar, Professor of Law and
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the School of Law of the University of California at Davis, Kluwer
Law International,

2009, page 19

Although it is commonplace today to refer to the United States as

a single entity and as the subject of statements that grammatically
employ singular verbs, it is important to remember that the United
States remains in many important ways a collective term . The enduring
legal significance of the fifty states that together constitute the United States, and their essential dominion
over most legal matters affecting day-to-day life within the United States, vastly complicates any attempt

Within the community of

nations, the United States is a geopolitical superpower that acts
to summarize the civil procedures within the United States.

through a federal government granted constitutionally specified and

limited powers. The organizing principle of the federal Constitution,1
however, is one of popular sovereignty, with governmental powers
distributed in the first instance to republican institutions of
government organized autonomously and uniquely in each of the
fifty states. Although there are substantial similarities in the organization of state governments,
idiosyncrasies abound.

Sanctions must be removed first, or else its not legalized.

Woods 11 Ph.D. candidate in Criminology @ University of Cambridge [Jordan Blair Woods (JD
from UCLA School of Law), A Decade after Drug Decriminalization: What can the United States learn
from the Portugese Model?" University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 15 UDC-DCSL L. Rev. 1
(Fall 2011)
There are three main legal approaches to drug use, each of which has benefits and drawbacks. At one
end of the spectrum is criminalization. In a criminalized regime, drug use is a criminal offense.
Individuals face criminal charges and proceedings if they are caught using legally prohibited drugs. n29

At the other end of the spectrum is legalization. In a legalized regime,

people are legally permitted to use drugs under regulated conditions
without the threat of criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions. n30 In between these
two options is decriminalization. In a decriminalized regime, drug use is not a criminal offense, but may
remain subject to non-criminal sanctions (such as administrative sanctions). n31 Decriminalization takes
a position on the legal treatment of drug use only, and takes no position on [*7] drug production or drug

distribution. n32 Thus, in a decriminalized regime, drug production and drug distribution may remain
criminalized.

AT: State (pot)

Only fed gov policies matter
Kamin 14 Professor and Director of the Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program @
University of Denver [Sam Kamin, The Limits of Marijuana Legalization in the States, Iowa Law Review
Bulletin, Volume 99 (2014)
Marijuana regulation in the United States is in a period of unprecedented flux. While the federal
government continues to list marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA)a drug whose manufacture and sale is a felony punishable by up to life in prison1 many states

The last twenty years have seen an

increasing number of states legalize marijuana for medical purposesremoving the
are starting to treat the drug quite differently.

criminal penalties for those using the drug pursuant to a doctors recommendation and setting up
regulatory regimes under which qualifying patients may purchase and possess the drug.
This increasingly differential treatment of marijuana under state and federal law creates significant legal
uncertainty.

The reason for the scare quotes

in the previous paragraph, of course,

is that

states cannot simply legalize that which the federal government prohibits.
While a state may remove its own marijuana prohibition and may even
create a regulatory system under which licensed dispensaries sell marijuana to those who can
show a medical need, a state is powerless to insulate its citizens from the
threat of federal law enforcement. Also hanging over the states is the
specter of federal preemptionthe possibility that the federal government will sue in federal

court to enjoin the states attempts to tax and regulate marijuana on the basis that federal law preempts
such state action.2 pg. 39-40

AT: States (Organs)

NOTA would have to be repealed an act of Congress
ANDIEW & BLOCK 11 Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and
Professor of Economics, College of Business, Loyola
University New Orleans [Scott Andiew V and Walter E. Block, Organ
Transplant: Using the Free Market Solves the Problem, J Clinic Res Bioeth
2:111. doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000111]
Suppose you go to the hospital after experiencing several days of nausea, fatigue and trouble urinating.
After havingOPTN test after test run on you and spending your week in and out of the hospital, you are told
that you are in need of a kidney transplant. The news would be devastating; however the journey to
receiving a transplant has just begun. Your first step would probably be to contact the finest transplant
facility and the best doctors. They would evaluate you and put you on the organ transplant waiting list. On
this list you could sit and wait a very long time. You undergo dialysis often and feel weaker by the day. Are
you ever going to get a kidney? You ask yourself the question a thousand times. It is a question that has no
definitive answer. Thousands of Americans die every year while on organ transplant waiting lists. The
system in place today allows some of those on waiting lists to wither away and die. This seems incredulous
due to medical technology advances and increases in transplant surgery survival rates. So are there even

under the current

government regulated system, in which organs cannot be sold by
the donor, the number of people dying on waiting lists is sobering .
Every year over 1,300 people die awaiting heart transplants and
over 3,000 people die awaiting kidney transplants (United Network for Organ
Sharing, 2010). The problems are the lack of quality donated organs. The
government has only allowed a select handful of organizations to run the transplant industry. The
solution: repeal the National Organ Transplant Act and allow the free
market to work for the sick and dying, instead of against them, as at present.
enough organs out there to go around? The answer is a simple yes. However,

The system today

In 1984 the U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to
regulate and help organize the growing field of organ transplants

(U.S.
Congress 1984). The act laid out the requirements to organize a qualified organ procurement agency, the
requirements to join the organ procurement and transplantation network, accounting practices within the
organ procurement and transplantation organizations, and prohibited the purchase of organs or tissue[1]1.
The act called for an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, to be run by private, nonprofit organizations under federal contract. The only organization of this kind is the United Network for
Organ Sharing or UNOS. UNOS was the first certified in 1986 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services as part of the OPTN [1]. UNOS works in conjunction with organ procurement agencies and
transplant centers. Under the federal contact, UNOS has established an organ sharing network that the
organization claims to "maximize the efficient use of deceased organs through equitable and timely
allocation" [1]2. UNOS also "guided persons and organizations" concerned with transplants in order to
increase the number of possible organs for transplant. UNOS allocates organs using a centralized computer
system linking organ procurement agencies and transplant centers to improve efficiency in the
transplantation process, bringing organs to those who need them most and are the best candidates for the
transplant surgery [1].

The plan is political suicide

Calandrillo 4 [Steve Calandrillo (Law ProfU of Washington); George Mason Law Review, Vol. 13,
pp. 69-133, 2004; Cash for Kidneys? Utilizing Incentives to End America's Organ Shortage]

REAL REFORMS: UTILIZING INCENTIVES TO END THE NATIONS ORGAN

SHORTAGE
Despite the above analysis, any form of legalized human organ market would
be far from a utopian solution: it would be political suicide

to propose,

entail

significant administrative costs to establish and monitor, and remain

morally distasteful to many Americans. While such markets havebeen debated without
much progress in the past, far less attention has been paid to dozens of other monetary and nonmonetary

an incentive-based approach would avoid

imposing risk on living donors, dramatically expand the pool of
available organs, and shock the conscience far less than allowing
living-seller markets.190
incentives that could be employed. Taking

**Aff Answers**

PC Not key
PC is irrelevant to TPAit boils down to election calculus
Guida 12-30 (Victoria Guida, Politico Trade Reporter, 12-30-2014, "The
GOP's divisive trade play", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html,
Accessed: 1-1-2015) JO
The Democrats in the House generally represent really safe
Democrat seats, so if Im a Democrat, Im not worried about
Republicans coming in and knocking me out, one congressional staffer
said in describing the influence of labor. Im worried about someone
challenging me from the left. This dynamic has become even more
pronounced as moderate Democrats have lost their seats, the aide
said. Galston said Democratic support for trade will boil down to an
intense local calculus. [Democratic members of Congress] are
going to ask, Is this on balance beneficial or not to my district?
Galston said. If the answer is no, that doesnt mean some of them wont
vote in favor of it anyway, but theyll sure think twice. A more open trading
regime is not equally friendly to all sectors of the economy and
certainly not to all congressional districts. Meanwhile, Republicans
could push to alienate Democrats on trade to secure more funding from big
business groups with deep pockets, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and National Association of Manufacturers, which are big supporters of free
trade deals.

TPA Wont pass

Wont pass- not enough Republican support
Guida 12-30 (Victoria Guida, Politico Trade Reporter, 12-30-2014, "The
GOP's divisive trade play", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html,
Accessed: 1-1-2015) JO
For its part, the Obama administration is aiming to get half the
Democrats in the Senate on board with its plans, the Democratic adviser
said. Many pro-trade Democrats are quick to note that trade might now be
a wedge issue for both parties. They have that same problem in
their conference, said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), chairman of the pro-trade
New Democrats, noting that there are some tea party conservatives in the
Republican Party who balk at giving Obama more power. One
congressional aide estimated between 15 and 17 Republicans in the
House are opposed to trade promotion authority. The Democratic
adviser said as many as 16 Republican senators may want to avoid a
tough trade vote, and the presidentials might also have to break off from
a trade yes-vote. He argued that this means that Republicans cant be too
divisive on trade, at least in the Senate, because they need Democratic
support to make up that deficit.

Wont passLobbying groups overwhelmingly oppose it

Guida 12-30 (Victoria Guida, Politico Trade Reporter, 12-30-2014, "The
GOP's divisive trade play", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html,
Accessed: 1-1-2015) JO
The powerful AFL-CIO has been among the harshest critics of
pending fast track trade legislation, though it has been more coy
about its positions on a pair of blockbuster trade deals with 11 other AsiaPacific countries and the 28 nations of the European Union. To get those deals
though Congress, Obama will need lawmakers to pass a bill allowing him to
fast-track the agreements through Congress with straight up-or-down votes
and no amendments. The labor group has been on the warpath against
that legislation, also called trade promotion authority, and is
spending money on an ad campaign opposing it: Fast track. It means
forgetting working Americans, reads one of the ads in the Washington
metros Capitol South station. The Sierra Club and other environmental
groups are also against the legislation because of the potential
regulatory changes that could be included in the Asia-Pacific trade
deal, which they fear could roll back environmental protections. With
the backing of these groups, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Louise
Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), among others, have
been holding rallies and sending letters to assemble an anti-fast
track army. They stand on the opposite side of the pro-trade New
Democrat Coalition, which is losing 12 members because of defeats

in the midterm election and retirements.

Wont passDemocrats dislike trade and Republicans

dislike Obama
NYT 12-31 (Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman, 12-31-2014, "Undaunted
by the odds, Obamas trade chief backs 12-nation deal", New York Times,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/12/31/undaunted-odds-obamatrade-chief-backs-nation-deal/QdK11mLJfisfvQ3lfDEjiN/story.html, Accessed:
1-1-2015) JO
Still, to members of Congress, Obamas trade agenda has been waiting
in the wings for so long that the promises are beginning to ring
hollow. Efforts to grant Obama trade promotion authority once
known as fast-track authority have gone nowhere . Froman insists the
political stars have aligned. Republican control of the Senate has elevated
pro-trade lawmakers to key positions, and the international negotiations
themselves have progressed. But the deals completion is not
guaranteed. Republicans inclined to give the president tradenegotiating authority are still seething at his executive action
deferring deportation of millions of unauthorized immigrants.
Democrats may be the bigger problem. Froman has met dozens of times
with Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on
the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction on trade.
Levin said he wants to work with the administration on the
partnership. But hes not about to let Obama negotiate the
partnership on his own, then present it to Congress for an up-or-down
vote. Environmental groups doubt the administration is really
pressing for binding, enforceable standards. And trade unions worry
that the administration is putting too much emphasis on protecting
intellectual property, a boon to pharmaceutical companies, Hollywood, and
rich investors but not in their view particularly useful to workers.

Wont passthe votes arent there

Rimmer 12-22 (Matthew Rimmer, Dr. Matthew Rimmer is an Australian
Research Council Future Fellow, working on Intellectual Property and Climate
Change. He is an associate professor at the ANU College of Law, and an
associate director of the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in
Agriculture (ACIPA). He holds a BA (Hons) and a University Medal in literature,
and a LLB (Hons) from the Australian National University, and a PhD (Law)
from the University of New South Wales., 12-22-2014, "Senator Elizabeth
Warren Fights The White House Over The Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership
#Tpp", Infojustice.Org, http://infojustice.org/archives/33712, Accessed: 12-292014) JO
The Obama administration, though, has not had the support of
Democrats in the United States Congress. Senior Democrat
Representative Sander Levin has expressed reservations about the
process and the substance of the TPP. Senator Elizabeth Warren has
worried about how the TPP will affect financial regulation of Wall Street. Other

Democrats have additional reservations about the TPP. Senator Ron Wyden is
of the view that the fast-track regime needs to be overhauled and
modernised. Three House of Representatives DemocratsReps. Rosa
DeLauro (Conn.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Alan Grayson (Fla.)maintained
that there are insufficient votes in the House to pass trade promotion
authority to secure the approval of the 12-nation TPP. De Lauro
commented: Fast-track doesnt have support in the current Congress
and wont have support in the next Congress. She declared: The
votes are not there . Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has said that
he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of
the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be. However, there are
significant divisions within the Republicans over the TPP. There
could well be insufficient support within the United States Congress
for a trade promotion authority.

Too long, TPA doesnt solve

Trade deals wont pass anytime soon and TPA is irrelevant
Watson 12-23-14 (K. William Watson (Bill Watson), trade policy analyst
with Catos Herbert A Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.12-23-2014,
"How Long Is the TPP Going to Take?", Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-long-tpp-going-take, Accessed: 12-29-2014) JO
We were once told that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be
completed by the end of 2013. Then it was early 2014, then late
2014, or probably sometime before 2015, or in early 2015 for sure. At
this point, only two things are certain: you shouldnt believe any
predictions about the TPP, and the TPP is taking a really, really long
time. To get an idea for how long the TPP is taking, consider this graph put
out by the Peterson Institute earlier this month showing the negotiation and
ratification times for previous free trade agreements: The argument theyre
trying to make with this graph is that the United States needs to pass trade
promotion authority to make sure the TPP doesnt get bogged down in
Congress (the red line) after negotiations finally conclude. They may be right,
but I think it also tells us quite plainly that quick ratification of the TPP,
with or without t rade p romotion a uthority, is an unrealistic
expectation. Heres the same data presented with the negotiation and
ratification times stacked on top of each other and with the current progress
of the TPP (and TTIP) included: As you can see, the TPP negotiations are
taking an unprecedentedly long time to complete. Undaunted by the
failure of previous predictions, the U.S. Trade Representative is now claiming
that the negotiations will conclude and the whole deal can be passed by
Congress before the end of 2015. That would be an impressively abrupt end
to a long project, with a blue and red line total of just under 70 months. Its
possible that passing trade promotion authority will bring much
needed energy to the TPP process. Hopefully, USTR is right, and
Congress will pass trade promotion authority, the TPP negotiations will
conclude, and the ratification will be swift. It seems more likely, however,
that the TPP is a trade policy quagmire the United States entered
into with overly ambitious goals and inadequate resolve to see them
met. Theres a lot more than just the lack of t rade p romotion
a uthority keeping the TPP negotiations from concluding. And you
might notice from the graph above that, even with t rade p romotion
a uthority in place, the most recent trade agreements lingered in
Congress for a very long time after the negotiations were completed.

Japan Blocks TPP

Japan blocks TPP passage
Hellenic Shipping News 12-23 (Hellenic shipping news, 12-23-2014,
"Can Trade Deals Lift The Global Economy?", Hellenic shipping news,
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/can-trade-deals-lift-the-globaleconomy/, Accessed: 12-29-2014) JO
However it is a different story with the TPP. Following the November G20
meeting in Canberra in November, ministers from participating countries
used vague language to describe its progress such as the shape is
crystallising, they would consult widely to resolve outstanding issues
and momentum is building. Ironically the biggest stumbling blocks for
the TPP are the US and Japan which, as the two biggest economies in
the partnership, should have been pushing it along. Although
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been safely re-elected, the
TPP doesnt seem to be top of his agenda. It was barely mentioned
during the election campaign and there is strong political
opposition to it from within his own Liberal Democratic Party.

Keystone

Topshelf

1NC
Republicans are only four votes from overriding Obamas
veto on the Keystone pipeline, and Democrats will need to
have a unified front
RT, 1/6

[1/6/14, Obama not to sign Keystone XL pipeline bill, Senate set for Friday vote,
http://rt.com/usa/220119-usa-senate-keystone-bill/]

While Republicans hope legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline will

pass a Senate vote on Friday, the White House says that President Barack
Obama will not sign it anyway. The US Senate is planning to vote at the end
of the week on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport
crude oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, House Majority leader Kevin
McCarthy told The Wall Street Journal on Monday. The fact that Republicans
are in the majority in the Senate after November midterm elections makes
McCarthy confident the oil-sands pipeline legislation will pass. Key Republican
Senator John Hoeven told Bloomberg on Monday that the legislation he will
submit has 63 votes. This means it would lack four votes to overcome
Obamas veto. According to Hoeven, supporters of the project proposed by
the TransCanada Corporation in 2008 have time to break through the
gridlock, that being the presidents signature. On Tuesday, White House
Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he doesnt expect Obama to sign the
legislation, even if it passes the new Republican-led US Congress. He added
that the State Departments review process should not be undermined by
legislation.
<Insert link here>

The passage of the Keystone pipeline leads to Russian

economic collapse
Francis14 (The Keystone pipeline is Obamas best revenge on Putin

http://nypost.com/2014/03/29/the-keystone-pipeline-is-obamas-best-revengeon-putin/,#jbear)
Its too late to save Crimea, and possibly half of Ukraine, now that Vlad the Annexer has articulated the Putin Doctrine: Russia will
invade any country that oppresses its Russian minority. But
Putins Doctrine is underpinned by Russias oil and natural-gas
industry, which provides 70 percent of the countrys export income
and 52 percent of its governments revenues . Moscow now controls half the energy market in
Europe and is able to adjust prices to punish or reward countries and to keep others quiet. This strategy has made Russia, with an economy
the size of Californias, wealthier than ever but also exceedingly vulnerable.

Russia is a petro-economy and

little else. Since Ukraines crisis, sanctions have been imposed and
its stock market and currency have tanked. But a geopolitical and
energy policy shift is needed to stop Putin in his tracks, and only
the United States and Canada can flex enough energy muscle to
impede the Russian energy juggernaut . Together, the US and Canada have more oil and natural-gas
reserves than Russia or the Middle East. Modal Trigger Obama has been dragging his feet on the pipeline, but now might be the right time to

rethink his position. Photo: Reuters Modal Trigger The Keystone pipeline would add enough barrels a day into the US oil market to replace
imports from Russian ally Venezuela. Photo: Reuters Canada is the only supplier of natural gas and largest supplier of oil to the United States,
at 2.5 million barrels a day.

. But Americans consume 19.4 million daily and,

despite gains in oil production from shale, cannot become selfsufficient in oil until 2035, with 4 million barrels a day from the oil
sands, according to the International Energy Agency. Clearly, the
two must gear up for battle by deploying oil and natural-gas
weaponry . The most immediate retaliatory blow would be the approval of Keystone XL from Canada. This oil pipeline would add
830,000 barrels a day into the US oil market, more than enough to replace the 755,000 barrels a day of oil imports from Russias western
hemispheric ally Venezuela.

A Keystone bomb would deliver several payloads:

punishment toward anti-American Venezuela; proceeds toward

Canada which buys more goods and services from the US than the
European Union does; punishment toward Russia by casting into the
markets more Venezuelan oil ; replacement of Venezuelan oil with Canadian oil that is $30 a barrel cheaper
(roughly 30 percent less) and even an improved environmental outcome. A recent study by US energy consultant IHS Global Insight showed
that oil sands crude represents 6 percent more emissions than average crude consumed in the US, but Venezuelas is 14 percent higher.
President Obama has been dragging his feet on this pipeline even in light of his November speech that stated after years of talk about
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we are actually poised to control our own energy future.

The fact is that the

only way the United States can control its oil future is by tapping
into the oil sands. For these and other reasons , Bill Clinton has called upon his
environmental friends to embrace Keystone and move on

. Modal Trigger Diane Francis discusses

the geopolitical significance of the Keystone Pipeline in Merger of

the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One
Country. Americas other weapon is natural gas exports in concert
with Canada . Natural gas can only be transported by pipeline and vessel unless chilled to -161 degrees Fahrenheit. This
process makes the gas more expensive, but the world now knows
that Russian energy carries with it a hefty and hidden price tag . A
glimpse into a burgeoning American-Canadian strategy occurred this week when the Department of Energy and Canadian authorities approved
a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and port in Oregon using Canadian natural gas. Shipments will go to India and Japan, the worlds largest
importer of LNG, reliant on Russia for 76 percent of its LNG. This week, Canada also approved its first four LNG projects in British Columbia and
in the past 10 months, the US has approved five more LNG projects. One bill in Congress proposes immediate approval of the two dozen
projects pending in the US. Most will help Europe and Asia reduce their dependence on Russian natural gas over time. Europes 22 LNG ports
are under-utilized but have the capacity to reduce Russian gas imports by 25 percent. Likewise, Japan, India, China and South Korea have the
facilities and are eager to reduce dependence on Russian LNG. The importance of North Americas entry into the energy war cannot be
understated, as Lithuanias energy minister Jaroslav Neverovic explained to the US Senate this week. His country is gouged by Russia, which
has the monopoly on its gas supplies. So Lithuania is just 250 days away from completing its first LNG plant and he pleaded for the US to
release its gas to world markets as quickly as possible. The only obstacle to fighting fuel with fuel will be the environmental movement that
has held up Keystone for five years and now opposes LNG exports. But Putin is going to continue his aggression and the world is going to
continue to use oil and natural gas until alternative energies are capable of replacing fossil fuels. Environmentalists should invest their time,
and donations, on conservation efforts and financing scientific efforts to come up with viable alternatives not opposing reality.

Economic collapse causes nationalist takeover

FRIEDLANDER 2009 (Monica, Black Leather Pragmatist, UC Berkeley
College of Letters and Science, Jowitt is Professor Emeritus of Political Science
Ken Jowitt, http://www.ias.berkeley.edu/node/351)
Instead, quite the opposite may be true, Jowitt cautioned. Far from becoming
more democratic, Russia could fall prey to what he described as rage-filled,
anti-Western forces who could take power in a crisis. And leadership that
comes out of a crisis, he said, is always unpredictable. The threat to Russian

stability today comes from the inside, Jowitt said. If the Russian economy
collapses we might be in a situation where we see the appearance of
nihilistic ideologies and movements clustered around leaders trying to form
an alliance with parts of the Russian military. The result of such
developments, Jowitt concluded, would be a far less palatable alternative to
Putins rule. In light of the economic recession and what Russia is today and
what it is not, a state mercantilistic Russia led by non-ideological Putin may
not be the optimal political outcome for Russia. But in 2009, its not at all a
bad second-best.

Extinction
ISRAELYAN 98 (Victor, For almost 50 years, Victor Israelyan was a Soviet
ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political
scientistWashington Quarterly, Winter)
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this
option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign

would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps

to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy ." Such steps would include Russia's
policies. Many

denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention;
denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force,
including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as
medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial
financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would,
according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario,

Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic
partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security .
This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the

Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear

weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line
policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in
expanded NATO,

those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including
economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as
well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means,

even the use of direct military

force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible
because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some
Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who
are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this
path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240

when Weimar Germany was isolated,

Hitler took it upon
himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the
world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives . I do
Duma members. One cannot help but remember that

exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf

not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then
again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that

economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin,
for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon
Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all
measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons ." n10 In autumn
1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while

Russia
has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe . n11 Former
saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that

Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could
become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear

Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their

missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that
arsenals -- and tensions --

with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble

There are signs indicating that this scenario is

emerging. The new military doctrine has actually reversed the pledge never to use nuclear weapons
on, until we all fall down together." n12

first. Earlier this year, Ivan Rybkin, secretary of Russia's Security Council, said, "Everyone must know that
in case of a direct challenge our response will be fully fledged, and we are to choose the use of means."
n13 Later, in an interview, he said that parliamentary ratification of START II has become "almost
impossible." n14 The Duma has again postponed the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and

Russian military planners are claiming that the only feasible military response
to NATO expansion is the redeployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons
closer to Russia's borders.

2NC OV
The DA outweighs the caseThe plan shatters the remains of the Democrat front
against Keystone, allowing it to pass. The influx of oil will
shock the Russian oil industry, which is already on the
brink from recent oil price drops. Russian economic
collapse leads to the takeover of Russia by Russian
nationalists. This makes extinction inevitable; every
recent conflict in history has empirically been a direct
result of a rise in nationalism. This is especially true of
Russia. Heres more evidence
PAIN 2011 (Professor Emil Pain of the Higher School of Economics, Russian
expert sees authorities alarmed at uncontrolled growth of nationalism,
Novaya Gazeta, BBC World Monitoring, Jan 24, lexis)

Neither smoke-choked Moscow as a result of the fires, nor the winter incarceration of thousands of people
at Domodevo and Sheremetyevo Airports, which have been abandoned by the authorities, nor the
atrocities perpetrated over the many years by a gang of murderers in Kushchevskaya and covered up by
Krasnodar officials triggered protest rallies. Whereas between 5,000 (according to the Moscow Internal

12,000 (according to experts' assessments) participants went to

Manezhnaya Square on 11 December beneath the slogans "Forward,
Russians!"; "Russia for Russians, Moscow for Muscovites!"; and "Moscow is not the Caucasus!"
Affairs Main Administration) and

They were not bussed in, paid fees, or lured to the square by promises of entertainment - this was a selfmade demonstration that spread to 15 Russian towns. According to the assessments of several polling

the level of approval or sympathy for this political activity among the
inhabitants of Russia totalled 25-27 per cent, with approximately the same percentage of
waverers. Is this a lot or a little? In October 1922 8,000 blackshirts enjoying negligible
support among the Italian population marched on Rome and brought
Mussolini to power. The ideas of that march, as of the "Russian March,"
combined demands for social justice and "the return of the dignity of a
humiliated nation." In this way they "raised from its knees" an Italy that in the 1920s was similar to
centres,

present-day Russia insofar as there was also no society there but a population divided into local groups.
Northerners hated southerners, who repaid them in kind. But in the 1920s there was still no Internet or
social networks capable of almost instantaneously organizing tens of thousands of people, as happened in
Moscow. Let me cite some extracts from the exchanges on social networks: "The group itself emerged on
12 December 2010; prior to that we had only had one meeting, whereas there are now more than 5,000
people in the group"; "The idea for Manezhnaya Square came as soon as Leningradskiy Prospekt was
successfully blocked; we immediately uploaded this info"; "We had been in contact since 6 December; as is
known, the meeting was scheduled for 11 December.... More than 9,000 people were registered at the
meeting"; "The group that prepared the Ostankino protests had been taken from the ranks of the rightwing guys who ran riot in Manezhnaya, but this did not seem enough for them and they asked us to help
them to organize the people...." And this is how they organized them. Dozens of volunteer dispatchers
between the ages of 14 and 20 gathered a thousands-strong crowd. There were also adults, of course, who
exploited this crowd. They relied on other, less overt forms of dispatcherization, also including clandestine

all of this was united by a common idea close to the one

expounded in the anonymous letter to Airborne Troops Commander
Shamanov that is doing the rounds of the Internet. This letter contains a
request: To use "the Russian people's airborne troops" to suppress not only
"Caucasian lawlessness" but also "the do-nothing authorities." Unhappy with
both of these circumstances, nationalist young people are looking for a leader
from the military environment. In this connection it does not seem fanciful to
imagine a new "Kvachkov case" involving accusations against him of
apartments. But

organizing "voluntary militia" groups in a number of Russian cities that, at a

signal, were supposed to occupy military units and set off on a March to
Moscow in the expectation of support from "patriotic young people." Such a
scenario is likely, and it can be absolutely defined using the metaphor "explosion." But other trends
and threats are even more likely before 2012.

2NC UQ Wall
Republicans are just 4 votes away from overriding a veto
Litvan, 1/5

[Laura, 1/5/14, reporter for Bloomberg News in Washington, Keystone Bill Said to be Four
Votes Shy of a Veto-Proof Majority, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01-05/keystone-bill-said-tobe-four-votes-shy-of-a-veto-proof-majority]

Supporters of a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline lack the votes to

overcome a potential presidential veto and will seek changes during debate
to pick up Democratic support, a key Republican lawmaker said. Senator John
Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said the legislation hell introduce
tomorrow that would circumvent President Barack Obama has 63 votes -enough to pass but four shy of whats needed to override a veto. Supporters
have time to break through the gridlock and force the presidents hand on
the project TransCanada Corp. (TRP) proposed seven years ago, Hoeven said
today in an interview. The whole idea is to have an open process and let
people offer amendments. Keystone will be the first legislative showdown as
Republicans tomorrow take control of both the House and Senate for the first
time since 2006. A Senate committee is scheduled to consider Hoevens bill
Wednesday and vote Thursday with action by the full Senate as soon as next
week. The House is expected to vote on a similar Keystone bill this week.

The Keystone pipeline is at the top of the agenda and is

only a few votes from being veto-proof and any
contentious bill could change the balance of power
Schor, 11/5

[Elana, 11/5/14, energy reporter for POLITICO Pro, has a Masters from Northwestern
University and a Bachelors from Columbia University, Elections give Keystone a filibuster-proof majority,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-pipeline-2014-elections-112567.html]

Republicans will command a filibuster-proof Senate majority in favor of the

Keystone XL pipeline after Tuesdays election victories and they could be
within striking distance of assembling a veto-proof bloc for the project,
increasing their leverage over President Barack Obama.
The GOP says Keystone will be the subject of one of the first votes in the
newly GOP-controlled Senate, when Republicans will be able to join forces
with several Democrats who have already publicly backed the Alberta-toTexas oil pipeline. I think first order of business is to pass it out of House,
Senate, and then finally force the president to make a decision on it, a GOP
aide said Tuesday night, adding that the contrast will be crystal clear if
Obama rejects a pipeline that counts support from more than 6 in 10
Americans in public polls. Only then do I think we would rework strategy to
secure veto-proof, the Republican aide said. Heres how the math would
work: Before Tuesdays elections, pipeline advocates could count on a solid
57 votes in the Senate, including a dozen Democrats who have previously cosponsored or expressed support for binding pro-Keystone legislation.
Tuesdays victories by Republican Senate candidates Cory Gardner in
Colorado, Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia, Mike Rounds in South Dakota
and Joni Ernst in Iowa bring that total to 61. And if Republicans are feeling
ambitious, they could try to pull in four Democrats who previously supported
a nonbinding resolution on Keystone during the 2013 budget debate: Chris

Coons and Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida and Michael Bennet
of Colorado. That gets them to 65. Going beyond that , in hopes of getting a
veto-proof 67, would depend on how willing Republican leaders are to add
sweeteners to a pipeline bill and avoid divisive riders on issues like
offshore drilling.

Keystone gaining momenteum to get past the VETO ,Key

Democrats are switching to vote for the bill.
Geman1/6/15 (White House, Dems Take Keystone XL Fight
to Republicans http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/white-house-

dems-take-keystone-xl-fight-to-republicans-20150106, Ben Geman is a

National Journal Energy and Environment Correspondent, and has nearly a
decade of experience on the beat. Before joining National Journal he spent
four years as an energy correspondent for The Hill, where he helped launch
the paper's energy blog. From 2004-2009, Ben was a reporter for
Environment & Energy Publishing, writing for Greenwire and other E&E
newsletters. Ben also worked at the newsletter Inside EPA, and before moving
to Washington, D.C. in 2002 he wrote for several Boston-area newspapers,
including the Boston Phoenix. #jbear)
The White House and Senate Democrats sought to seize political momentum in the Keystone XL battle Tuesday, and make
the fight less about the oil pipeline and more about claims that Republicans are quickly abandoning pledges of

The White House finally said that, yes, President

Obama will veto legislation that forces approval of the pipelineand
suggested Republicans were acting in bad faith by even bringing it
up. On Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats pushed the narrative that new
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is already bending
Senate procedures for partisan gain. "It raises questions about the
willingness of Republicans to work with this administration when
you consider that the very first bill that [they] introduce is one that
the president opposes," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Obama has made a series of critical
cooperation across the aisle.

statements about the project, which remains under State Department review, but has stopped short until now of vowing
to veto the upcoming legislation.

The newest battle is unfolding against the

backdrop of a steep drop in gasoline prices,

which have fallen roughly 80 cents per

gallon since early November to an average of $2.19 per gallon nationwide on Tuesday, according to AAA. The veto threat
arrived shortly after the bipartisan Senate duo of

North Dakota Republican John Hoeven

and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin formally introduced their

bill to approve TransCanada Corp.'s proposed pipeline, which would
carry oil from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries . The White House
claimed that the veto news arrived on Tuesday because the bill was formally unveiled. Meanwhile,

McConnell's

office spent Tuesday explainingand defendingthe use of arcane

Senate procedure. Senate Republicans are bent on getting their
Keystone bill on the floor fast and begin debate next week. But the
incoming GOP leadership has also vowed to honor traditional
Senate procedure, called "regular order ." That means a trip through the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee for the legislation to approve the pipeline. So here's what Republicans are doing: The bill
that comes to the floor in coming days won't technically be what the energy panel is slated to produce as soon as
Thursday. Instead, GOP leaders will quickly bring up a Keystone-approval bill on the floor using the Senate's Rule XIV,

which allows legislation to bypass committees. Democrats pounced on the GOP maneuver. "By moving to bypass
committees on the first bill of the new Congress, Senator McConnell is signaling that his promises of regular order have
already expired, and that he sees committees as nothing more than rubber stamps for Republican leadership," said Adam
Jentleson, a spokesman for Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat. McConnell's office defended the tactic. A spokesman
said the Keystone legislation that moves through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be substituted for the
bill that made a beeline to the floor under Rule XIV. "With a new Congress, to get the wheels moving, we'll need to [Rule
XIV] a base bill. But the committee product, produced through regular order, will take its place," said McConnell
spokesman Don Stewart. DON'T MISS TODAY'S TOP STORIES Exactly what I need as a busy college student."Samantha,
StudentSign up form for the newsletter That wasn't even the only piece of procedural jousting to unfold on Tuesday.
Wednesday's energy committee hearing on the bill was scuttled after Democrats blocked it. Sen. Dick Durbin, the
chamber's second-ranking Democrat, said he was objecting to the hearing because a formal organizing resolution for the
committees in the new Congress won't happen until tomorrow. "I say to the Majority Leader we will continue this
conversation in a positive manner in an effort to come up with a mutually agreeable approach to considering this
legislation and others, but for that reason I object," Durbin said, according to a transcript. A frustrated McConnell
responded simply:

"Nobody's rights would have in any way been impaired by

going forward a day early. We're going to pass the committee

resolutions tomorrow ," he said on the Senate floor. "We all know that one of the things the Senate is
best at is not doing much. ... Everyone knows the first measure that's going to be up is going to come out of the Energy
Committee. I would say to my friends on the minority side: It will be open for amendment, why don't we get it started?"
Robert Dillon, an aide to new Energy Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, said it's unclear whether a separate
Thursday committee meeting to vote on the Keystone legislation will proceed. He said it depends whether Democrats
allow the committee to formally organize in time. "

If they organize tomorrow, we can go

ahead with the business meeting Thursday," he said. Tuesday's

attacks put Democrats on offense ahead of what will be tougher
political days ahead.

When the Senate eventually votes on Keystone, it will split the Democratic caucus

to some degree. GOP gains in the midterms mean the bill easily has the 60 votes needed to beat a filibuster. Late last
year, 14 Democrats joined Republicans in support of a failed Keystone bill. McConnell, for his part, wondered aloud why
Obama has now signaled a veto when the White House declined such a threat in November.

That was when

Democrats allowed Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to bring up

Keystone legislation ahead of her runoff (she got crushed anyway).
"It's interesting to note that the President declined to issue a veto
threat last month when a Democrat senator was trying to save her
job over the exact same Keystone bill ," McConnell said in a statement. The House is
expected to easily approve Keystone legislation on Friday.

Warming I/L
Pipeline massively increases warming
Biello 14 (David Biello, associate editor for environment and energy at Scientific
American, Keystone Pipeline Will Impact Climate Change, State Department Reports,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/31/keystone-pipeline-will-impact-climate-changestate-department-reports/, 1/31/14 \\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)

So the State Department has dug more deeply into the issue of
greenhouse gases (pdf) as well and announced today that the Keystone
XL pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Oil from
Albertas tar sands is one of the most polluting kinds of oil, the report
notes, thanks to the energy cost of producing it in the first place as well as
the pet coke and other byproducts that end up getting burned as well. The
State Department also noted that just running the pipeline for a year
once built would result in the same greenhouse gas pollution as
roughly 300,000 cars over the same time span, and that the oil carried by
the pipeline could add as much as 27 million metric tons of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each yea r, most of that from its
ultimate use as fuel.

Russian Nationalism I/L

Drop in oil prices causes Russian ultranationalism

Newsweek 11 (8-15-2011, Fascist Russia?; The Kremlin plays a dangerous

game by pandering to far-right hate groups, lexis)
As Norway's tragedy showed, paranoid and violent minds can lurk in the
calmest, most prosperous countries. But the cancer of ultranationalism has
found a particularly fertile breeding ground in the frustrations and
resentments of young Russians. Belov claims to have predicted his country's
future as far back as August 1991. Manezh Square, in the shadow of the
Kremlin, was thronged with Russians celebrating the sudden collapse of
Soviet communism; to most, the evening marked the birth of Russian
democracy. But Belov, who was there with a friend, distributing pamphlets for
the anti-Semitic Pamyat organization, says he saw something else. "We knew
that these liberals would fail," he says. "And that their failure would fuel our
rise--the rise of the right."
Twenty years later, at least half of that apocalyptic vision has come true.
Russia's liberals have indeed failed; Russia is now ruled by an authoritarian
clique of former KGB men. And Belov may also have accurately foreseen the
triumph of the far right. On the surface, a decade of high oil prices has
brought ordinary Russians rising living standards and a semblance of political
stability. But even the Kremlin's closest allies fear that when oil prices
eventually fall and the tide of easy money recedes, the ugly reality of an
angry, fascist Russia could be revealed.

Ogallala Impact
Keystone contaminates the Ogallala Aquifer
Madhani 12

[Aamer. Energy for the Chi Tribune. Canada Seeks Alternative Route for
Keystone XL Pipeline The Chi Tribune, 1/9/12 ln//GBS-JV]
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have been built from
northwest Canada to Texas, was delayed in November after the Obama
administration faced an avalanche of protest from environmentalists.
Central to environmentalists' argument against the pipeline is a concern
that it would cut near the Ogallala Aquifer and a potential leak
would be catastrophe to a major water source for the Midwest.
Several Nebraska Republicans--including Gov. Dave Heineman--also opposed
that route. Canadian environmentalists are voicing similar concerns
about the alternative route. The Toronto Star reports that the western
route faces fierce opposition from environmentalists in Canada who say that
pipeline leaks or a tanker spill would endanger some of the world's
most pristine forests and coastal areas and that the proposal "has
already galvanized unprecedented concern in the green movement."

Extinction
Zellmer 8

[Sandy Prof Law and Water Resources Research at U of Nebraska. Boom and
Bust on the Great Plains: Dj vu All Over Again The Creighton Law Review,
April 2008 ln//GBS-JV]
CONCLUSION " Water is life ... . Each drop is a benediction ." 226 Reforms
- especially agricultural reforms - are hard to come by. According to Jim Lyons,
a former U.S. Agriculture Under Secretary, "the big commodity groups
have a stranglehold on policy. And there's not a lot of stomach for new
ideas." 227 William Ashworth points out, however, that the depletion of the
Ogallala Aquifer is an impending crisis that we ignore at our own
peril . 228 Given that the aquifer produces around twenty percent of
the U.S. harvest, the ripple effects of its demise could be
cataclysmic, nationally and even internationally. 229

Warming Impact
Keystone pipeline creates easy production for Canadian
tar sandsthat massively exacerbates warming
Hansen 12 (James Hansen, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies , Game
Over for the Climate, 5/9/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-theclimate.html,\\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the

climate. Canadas tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice
the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire
history . If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our
conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the
Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is
now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would

Global temperatures
would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planets
species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several
decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas
will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in
extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable . More
accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities.

and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. Californias Central Valley could no longer be irrigated.

Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.
This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has
the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast
refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to
encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

Warming causes extinctionoutweighs all other impacts

Deibel 7 (Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign
Affairs Strategy, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today
Anthropogenic caused by CO2)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as
prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action.

It is the

threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which

all earthly life depends . Scientists worldwide have been observing the
gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a
mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty.
Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in
refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic
warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is
virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals
of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring
effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports
shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and

violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate
change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge
portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and
malaria ; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and
worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have
been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists
have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with
1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths
and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled
broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating,
concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate
changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until
the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively
constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by
2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts
about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus
in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the
newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in
more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and
threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a
warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a
sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of
Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would
be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer
than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United
States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost
13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on
positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes
hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average
global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing

Faced with this specter, the best one can

conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the
amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with

the earths climate and humanitys life support system . At worst, says
physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to
burn everything up ;

were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the

Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During
the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries
but possible end life on this planet.

Global warming is the post-Cold War eras

equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably

better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form
terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame . It is a threat not
only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to
the continued existence of life on this planet .

**Aff Answers**

Wont Happen
Keystone is no longer economically viable
Halper, 12/15

[Evan, 12/15/14, political correspondent for the LA Times, Keystone XL pipeline may
no longer make economic sense, experts say, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-20141216story.html]

But "the political debate is not paralleled by the realities" in the market, said
Sandy Fielden, director of energy analytics at Texas-based RBN Energy. "The
economics of this project are becoming increasingly borderline." The problem
is that extracting oil from tar sands is difficult and costly. Prices need to be
relatively high to make the extra effort profitable . For pipeline boosters,
market conditions have turned gloomy as world oil prices have dropped to
the lowest point in five years. By some estimates, the price of oil already has
dropped below what investors in Keystone would need to break even, and
some analysts believe further drops are in store.
"The recent decline in [oil] prices has to give the sponsors some pause," said
Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics. The prospect of
abandoning the pipeline is something its Canadian builders and their
supporters in Congress say they won't even entertain. Keystone is a decadeslong investment that backers of the project say will not be changed by what
they portray as a temporary glut in the oil market. "We sign binding, longterm commercial agreements with our customers so they can reserve space
to deliver the crude oil they need to their customers," Mark Cooper, a
spokesman for TransCanada Corp., which would own the pipeline, wrote in an
email. The oil shippers investing in the pipeline, Cooper wrote, "have a good
understanding of what the market needs over time. They do not make
decisions based on short-term views or changes in commodity prices." But
some independent analysts say that's overly optimistic, especially after Saudi
Arabia announced over Thanksgiving that it will not slow its oil production in
the face of declining prices, as it has often done. Plunging prices have put oil
firms around the world under stress , placing smaller operations in danger of
bankruptcy. Canadian firms were already under pressure from the boom in
production by the U.S. shale-oil industry; the Saudi move squeezed them
further.

Lower Prices Take-Out

Low oil prices undermine support for Keystone production
and increase the risk it wont get fully utilizedclimate
impacts are too small scale to matter and the oil markets
intermittent nature makes it impossible to accurately
predict them
Levi 1/7 (Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the
Environment Council on Foreign Relations, What Low Oil Prices Mean for the Keystone XL
Pipeline, 1/7/15, http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/01/07/what-low-oil-prices-mean-for-the-keystone-xlpipeline/, \\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)

Lower oil prices reduce both the costs and the benefits of approving
the Keystone XL pipeline by reducing the odds that it will ever be fully
used. Theres an outside chance that, if prices are sustained at an
extremely low level, the Keystone XL pipeline wont get built. That
scenario isnt likely among other things, if Canadian production doesnt
grow, the odds of sustained low prices decline substantially but its not zero.
Lower prices also raise the odds that the pipeline will be built but
not fully utilized . In that case, you still get the up-front construction
stimulus, but you get less benefit from greater oil production, and less
climate damage from the same. You also have a waste of economic
resources. The more likely scenario, though, is that the Keystone XL
pipeline gets built and used. In that case, lower oil prices reduce its
economic benefits without any clear impact on its climate costs. If
you assume a constant elasticity of oil demand, then a given addition to
world oil production should push down prices by the same percentage,
regardless of what the starting point is. Imagine you think that the Keystone
pipeline would boost net world oil production by 100,000 barrels of
oil a day and you believe that would cut world oil prices by 0.3 percent.
If prevailing oil prices start at $100, youre cutting them by 30 cents;
if they start at $50, youre reducing them by only 15 cents. In both
cases the marginal reduction in oil prices saves Americans money through
reduced import costs and reduced absolute price volatility. (There is one
countervailing force at lower oil prices, U.S. imports are higher, and
therefore a given reduction in oil prices yields more economic benefit but
this shouldnt fully offset the main economic effect.) The upshot is that, in
the lower oil price world, any savings from Keystone XL are reduced.
What about the climate impact? For a given net impact of Keystone XL on
world oil production, the climate damages should be unchanged the impact
is a fixed function of how much extra oil is produced in Canada and how much
additional oil is consumed worldwide. So whatever you think the excess of
costs over benefits is for Keystone at $100 a barrel oil (and many people, of
course, think that excess is negative), you ought to think that its smaller
when prevailing oil prices are reduced. Keystone XL, like any oil production
project, is less compelling when prices are lower. What about the
absolute impact on both economics and climate? This is much more
difficult to pin down. The absolute impact of Keystone XL on both depends
on how other producers respond in the long run to any additional

production that it enables thats what determines the net impact on world
production and consumption. How that changes depending on the
prevailing oil price is unclear. Nailing that down would require
knowledge of global oil supply economics, as well as oil producer politics,
that no one confidently has. What hasnt changed is that both the
climate damages and the economic benefits from Keystone XL are
small in the grand schemes of climate change and the U.S. and
global economies. A Keystone XL decision will have much larger
consequences for U.S. politics, U.S.-Canada relations, and perhaps the
broader rules-based global trading system than it will for climate change or
the economy and thats where serious decision-makers ought to mostly
focus. Lower oil prices havent changed any of that.

Turn: US-Canada Relations

Keystone passage delays decimate US-Canadian relations
Whittington 14 (Les Whittington, Ottawa Bureau Reporter, 11/21/14, Keystone
pipeline delays symbolic of strained Canada-U.S. relations,
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/21/keystone_pipeline_delays_symbolic_of_strained_canadau
s_relations.html, \\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)

the current state of

interaction between Ottawa and Washington may be the worst since
2003, when former prime minister Jean Chrtien kept Canada from joining in then-U.S. president George
W. Bushs military incursion in Iraq. Now six years under consideration in the U.S. capital, the
Keystone XL pipeline proposal stands as the most obvious emblem
of this inauspicious state of affairs. The continuing lack of a decision
by Obama on building the $8-billion conduit to carry oilsands-derived crude from Alberta into the U.S.
has been a source of deep frustration for Prime Minister Stephen
Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. Harper has not hidden his
While Canada-U.S. affairs have always had their ups and downs,

feelings about the delay, telling Americans that approving Keystone was a no-brainer and his
government would not take no for an answer on the project. The Canadian government also spent
millions of dollars plastering Washington, D.C. subways with advertising meant to pave the way for
Keystone with Obama. And a frustrated Baird told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last winter that Canada
was tired of waiting and just wanted a decision on the pipeline, even if its not the right one.

Relations between Harper and his cabinet and the Obama

administration range from cordial at best to downright frigid, insiders
say. Obama has hinted that the Harper government undermined its own pro-Keystone position by not
doing more to curb greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands production. The president has
repeatedly scoffed at the supposed benefits that Keystone would
bring to the United States, most recently asserting in particularly pejorative fashion that
Keystone would allow Canadians to send their petroleum through the U.S. for export to everyone else.

Link UQ

Link Uniqueness

No Action on Oceans Now

No congressional action coming on oceans now
Russell, Fox News, 7-9-14
[George, Fox News, Fishing in murky waters,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/fishing-in-murky-watersadministrations-secretive-oceans-policies-come-under/, accessed 7-10-14,
AFB]
For its part, the administration has declared that no additional funding
beyond regular department budgets is being used to implement the
overall oceans policy, and it has made no announcements about
additional staffing related to the implementation. The same holds true for the
administrations National Oceans Implementation Plan, released in
April 2013. The policy does not create new regulations, supersede
current regulations, or modify any agencys established mission,
jurisdiction or authority, the document relates. Nor does it
redirect congressionally-appropriated funds, or direct agencies to
divert funds from existing programsall things that might trigger
the legal need for congressional approval.

No Legislative Action Now

No controversial policies before midterms
OToole, Defense One politics reporter, 6/25/14
[Molly, 6/25/2014, Defense One, With 28 Days Left, What Can Congress
Do?, http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/06/28-days-left-what-cancongress-do/87304/, accessed 7/13/14 CK]
When Congress breaks Thursday for the Fourth of July recess, it will
have only 28 days left to work before Election Day. As members
leave town, they also leave on the to-do list the National Defense
Authorization Act, more than 50 ambassador nominations to
hotspots such as Iraq and Egypt and even expedited, bipartisan
legislation to overhaul the embattled Department of Veterans
Affairs. The White House and members of both parties are putting
the pressure on congressional leadership to act but this
infamously do-nothing 113th Congress is unlikely to hold votes that
could make lawmakers vulnerable before the November midterm
elections, leaving crucial national security, foreign policy and
veterans legislation in limbo.

Generics

Ocean Funding Unpopular

1NC- Funding (Generic)

Ocean funding unpopular in Congress
Conathan 13 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the
Center for American Progress. Judy Li, an intern at the Center for American
Progress, Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-explorationdollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/, June 20, 2013)
Star Trek would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but
with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad
off base. Though we know little about outer space, we still have
plenty of frontiers to explore here on our home planet. And theyre
losing the race of discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of megablockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the
single-seat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the
worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into space
including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12

All it takes is a quick

comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space
exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide
margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASAs annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same
people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon.

year, total funding for everything NOAA doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting,
ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office
of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel
is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea
exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are
dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites Americans imaginations in
a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how
stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar
Galactica, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such
as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There
are even parodies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own
contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the
Sea, Sponge Bob Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats

This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in

real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the
about it.

red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious
hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when
Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was
met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this
incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into
the sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets,
meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were
children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot
see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans
have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than
we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our
shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider
this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans.
And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or

In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny

we should be taking a long, hard look at how
we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government
spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are
far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean
than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about
Bathynomus giganteus.

on the return for our investments,

half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a

wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals,
and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool
factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions
created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratchresistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space
has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched
plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a
few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than
distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral
resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United
States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the
185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With
or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places
on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has
discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international
waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath
international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but
we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure for these activities.

Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on

asked where we would be
today if we had spent half as much money exploring the oceans as we have
spent exploring space. Given the current financial climate in Congress, we
wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.
Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark

Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically

Ocean Policy is a bipartisan issues- causes backlash

Eilpern12 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/healthscience/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c39408fbe6a4b_story.html)
yellow highlighting =normal , Green :Nat Gas /Regulating
Enviroment
blue=aff spefic
red=plan spefic
Partisan battles are engulfing the nations ocean policy, showing
that polarization over environmental issues doesnt stop at the
waters edge.

For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White

House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.

Conservative Republicans warn that the

administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and

curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many
Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy
will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use.

The wrangling

threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as
diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House,

that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different

agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact . The
council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen
want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the
ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success

. The Center for Biological

Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels

traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California

coast.

Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep.

Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep.
Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An
environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University
biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1
million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best
locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic
successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding
that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.

Nearly a decade

ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to

coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend
from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200
miles from shore . When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be a Wild
West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis. In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy
set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to
offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change
congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory.

But he said he is

concerned that the administrations broad definition of what affects

the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to
regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill
goes into the ocean . ... That potential could be there. The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on
implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups anglers and energy firms have joined Republicans in questioning
the administrations approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nations oceans,
coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been
labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down, said Michael Leonard, director of
ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers.
Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan
is released, after the election.

The National Ocean Policy Coalition a group based in

Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming
and chemical interests has galvanized industry opposition to the
policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm
Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive
director, said that the public has not had

enough input into the development of the policy

and that his group worries about the potential economic impacts
of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.

Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares

coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books.
No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and
sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his
stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while

most ocean

policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen thats
become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.

2NC- Funding (Generic)

Extend Conathan space exploration is more popular than
ocean exploration will ever be the current Congress
environment will never pass anything that has to do with
spending
And ocean budgets are politically untenable
Gagosian 14 (Robert B. Gagosian, President and CEO, The Consortium for
Ocean Leadership, New Paradigm Needed For Federal Research Funding,
http://oceanleadership.org/new-paradigm-needed-federal-research-funding/,
February 4, 2014)
What can you say about the nations capital when Congress has the lowest approval ratings recorded in

We
appear to be in a perpetual stalemate with fiscal brinksmanship
becoming the new normal. The government recently shut down for the first time in 17 years,
Gallup polling history and the presidents approval rating has sunk to the lowest of his presidency?

and you have to ask: what did we get for paying hundreds of thousands of federal workers to stay home?
Only the promise of more fiscal showdowns on the horizonfirst in January when another budget
sequester is scheduled to go into effect and then in February when the debt limit needs to be extended

These kinds of
activities are having a continuing deleterious effect on the budgets
for scientific research as they continue to get tighter and tighter.
again, putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Budget Crisis The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a leading voice for the ocean science community

While disasters
named Sandy, Katrina, Haiyan, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima
have made the need for observing, understanding and forecasting
ocean processes and conditions more imperative, the political
morass in Washington is making our job more difficult than ever. As an
with the mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy.

eternal optimist, I must admit that even I am beginning to have my doubts on whether our nation can
remain the world leader in innovation if we continue attempting to balance the budget on the back of
discretionary programs, including science. The Department of Defense is scheduled to take the brunt of
the next budget sequester in January, and I suspect that research and development programs will share
the pain. We have partnered with the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research to reach out to the
members of the Congressional budget conference, encouraging them to find a compromise to replace the

If
cooler minds do not prevail, then I suspect we will continue to see
erosion in federal science programs, in critical infrastructure and
eventually human capital. How can we expect to recruit and sustain the next generation of
sequester and restore funding for research programs and science agencies critical to the economy.

scientists if they have a less than one in 10 chance of having their grants funded? Why would the best
minds that come to America to be trained want to stay here and contribute to our nation during such a dire
fiscal environment? I am concerned that this could lead to our best and brightest looking for opportunities

It was not only the budget crisis that

was noteworthy in 2013. There were also the expanding
expectations of politicians who demanded more scientific results
with societal implications as quickly as possible , while calling for
funding cuts to basic research. For instance, the Chairman of the House Science
in other countries. Long-Term View for Research

Committee, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), began questioning the peer-review process that has been the
foundation for the U.S. to be the world leader in innovation. While every scientist I know has had a great
proposal declined by a federal agency and probably questioned how the panel could reject it, on the whole,
I believe they would all state that the U.S. has the best research proposal review system in the world. And,
although we should always strive for improvement, I fear questioning the peer-review process while cutting

The desire to have a clear

and definable return on investment for basic research is
understandable for political purposes, but can be quite harmful for
research funds is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

scientific ones. These issues are creeping into otherwise popular

legislation such as the Sound Science Act, which was attached to the
House Farm Bill as a section titled Ensuring High Standards for
Agency Use of Scientific Information, and the FIRST Act, which deals with
coordination and priorities for federal STEM programs, is an evolution of the previously floated High-Quality
Research Act and is attached to the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. The result encourages,
at minimum, an overpromising of the research conclusions from a grant, which hurts the integrity of the
researcher and the system, or, more problematically, a fundamental shift away from understanding the
central premise of basic research. I fear that in the long-term this shift may undermine our ability to have
the basic knowledge needed to apply to the next generations challenges for the future success of our
society. Fortunately, the gridlock in Congress means that efforts in the House to alter the merit-review
system or undermine the peer-review process will likely not become law. But, if we do not educate our
elected officials, including the proponents of these policies, on the harmful impacts these could have on

a future political shift in Washington could see

these policies become law. Taking Action So, while Congress may be
accomplishing less than ever, that does not mean we should stand
by and do nothing. We need to be vigilant in reaching out to
Congress and explaining why oceanography is important for the
nation.
the scientific endeavor, then

Link Ocean Policy Funding

Ocean spending costs PC GOP opposition
Juliet Eilperin, Staff Writer at The Washington Post 10-28- 2012 National
ocean policy sparks partisan fight
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-oceanpolicy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c39408fbe6a4b_story.html DA: 6/6/14
Partisan battles are engulfing the nations ocean policy, showing that
polarization over environmental issues doesnt stop at the waters edge.
Obama created the first national ocean policy, with
Conservative Republicans warn that
the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the
For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President

a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.

extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts
over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal
agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean
Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The
council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen
want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the
ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the
speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee
hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can
do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic
control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him.
The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help
design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap
$10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the
Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without
proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from
the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that

In Washington, however,
legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country the Mid-Atlantic, New
without it there could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis.

England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss
said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws
and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in
theory. But he said he is concerned that the administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to regulating all

The House voted in May to

block the federal government from spending money on
implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups
anglers and energy firms have joined Republicans in questioning the
administrations approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S. citizens from
inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean. ... That potential could be there.

fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights
were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,
said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers, as
well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy
once its final implementation plan is released, after the election.

The National Ocean Policy Coalition a group based

galvanized industry

in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests has

opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director

work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive director, said that the public has not had enough
input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah
Cooksey, who is Delawares coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of
laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the
congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards
against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that
while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen

thats become partisan. I do not think

it will be the last.

Maritime funding causes huge fights acrimonious battles

with House GOP
Larry Kiern is a partner in Winston & Strawn's Washington, D.C. office who
concentrates his practice in litigation, arbitration, maritime, environmental,
legislative, and regulatory matters 2-15-2013 Congress Decides Maritime
Issues Amid Fiscal Policy Debate http://www.maritimeexecutive.com/magazine/Congress-Decides-Maritime-Issues-Amid-FiscalPolicy-Debate DA: 6/7/14

the
Congress featured threats of
shutdown in
order to force spending cuts
House Republican leaders
asserted they would refuse to
trigger
spending cuts
From the outset,

newly convened 113th

a partial government

more

. Prominent

that

initially

raise the national debt limit and thereby

a shutdown and mandatory

. They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders

decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the
economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced simply that
there will be no additional tax revenues. So the first months of

process

the Congress promise to replay the acrimonious

new

whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases.

this irresponsible
its maritime industry
When Congress proves
unready to make hard decisions it does what most legislative bodies
do: It postpones them.
As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly,

political game of chicken

only

harms

the nations economy, including

. In the

summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating.
,

Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have

proven unable to agree on additional spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting
the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way
spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just witnessed. When push
comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional
spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver
espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon
which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fiscal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important
laws: (1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast
Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated
House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water
standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level.

adopt

other

significant proposals

Congress declined to
also

. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference

provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S.
government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep. However, despite widespread
bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.

Ocean Policy Unpopular

Ocean Policy Controversial

Ocean policy has empirically been polarized sparks
fights over environmental issues and spending and angers
GOP
Eilperin, The Washington Post, 12
[Juliet, October 28, 2012, The Washington Post, National ocean policy sparks
partisan fight, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/healthscience/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e46417a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]

Partisan battles are engulfing the nations ocean policy, showing

that polarization over environmental issues doesnt stop at the
waters edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created
the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and
with that set off some fierce election-year fights. Conservative
Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand
its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy
resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies,
argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce
conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys
patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies,
representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have
some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean
Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean
users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six
federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs,
which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them
removed. Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having
little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling
through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural
Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said
that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire
consequences. Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air
traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An environmental group called Ocean Champions is

The sharp rhetoric puzzles

academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He
contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning
to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more
than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching
operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added
profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him.

own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his
Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and
minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore

Nearly a decade ago, two

bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate
its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the
roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from
shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there
energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.

could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis. In Washington,
however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the
country the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to
offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the
federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more
than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc

Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the
administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to
regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean. ... That potential could be there.
The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the

Two influential groups anglers and energy

firms have joined Republicans in questioning the administrations
approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S. citizens from
fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which
convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were
in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor
said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing
was going to be racheted down, said Michael Leonard, director of
ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association,
whose 700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers,
as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some
amendment has not passed the Senate.

input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is

The National Ocean Policy Coalition a group based

in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming
and chemical interests has galvanized industry opposition to the
policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director
released, after the election.

work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive
director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about
the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares
coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will
streamline application of laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In
Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads
against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against
Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article.

Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most

ocean policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen
thats become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.

Congress is more polarized than ever no ocean policy

will sail through and 09 proves
Helvarg, Blue Frontier Campaign president, 14

[David, an American journalist and environmental activist and the founder

and president of the marine conservation lobbying organization Blue Frontier
Campaign, 2/14/14, The oceans demand our attention,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-theoceans-demand-our-attention, accessed 7/11/14, GNL]
The latest battle over the future of Americas ocean frontier is being
fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in Congress. Democratic
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National
Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of
Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The
Endowment would establish a permanent fund based on offshore
energy revenue for scientific research and coastal restoration. On the
House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any funding that might allow the Army
Corps to participate in the Obama administrations National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to
control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops.

One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a

paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at
coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict,

redundancy and government waste, putting urban planning in the

water column, in the words of former Commandant of the Coast
Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster
response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands
the importance of working together when responding to a disaster.
And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate
change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas.
Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as
a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance
with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In 2004
ocean conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam
Farr (D-Calif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of
the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to
examine the state of Americas blue frontier in over three decades.
During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own
federal commissions recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now

As a result Americas seas continue to be poorly

managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal
approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon
retired), Leon Panetta.

State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job
of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy

By the time of the 2009

Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had become too polarized
to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air
and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to
based on the two commissions recommendations that he agreed to do.

hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National
Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next
year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80
percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.

In July 2010, in the wake of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,
President Obama finally signed the National Ocean Policy as an
administrative directive. NOAA then held a series of additional
hearings to engage stakeholders during which the oil and gas
industry tried to apply the brakes (why support a level playing field
when you already own the field). In 2012, CEQ finally announced that nine regional planning
bodies would be established to get the ocean policy implemented. In 2013, during the 4th Blue
Vision Summit activists held the largest Ocean Hill Day in history, a
citizens lobby from 21 states that included over 100 meetings with
Senators, House members and their staffs to advocate for getting
the National Ocean Policy underway. Still, today in early 2014, only four of the nine regional
bodies have held meetings. In New England, participation by the states, tribal governments, fishermen, environmentalists
and others have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic, its been more a case of different federal agencies talking to
each other without much transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and
the Western Pacific, including Hawaii. Although the course forward seems as slow as that sea hare, its also clear the
public wants action for our ocean, coasts and the communities that depend on them. One can only hope (and insist) that
by the end of the Obama presidency in 2016 we see some tangible improvements in how we treat our ocean through
better coordination and planning among agencies and stakeholders. Good models for this kind of sustainable ocean use
already exist in states like California. At that point we can raise our public seas to the level of public policy and begin to
balance recreation, ports and shipping, wildlife protection, clean energy, coastal climate adaptation, food security,
national security, exploration and science to sustain both our economy and the health of the ocean. Its past time we get
serious about moving forward on ocean policy and restoring the blue in our red, white and blue.

Ocean Policy Spends Political Capital

Gaining support for ocean policy requires political capital
NOP proves
Migliaccio, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law Senior
Head Notes Editor, 14
[Emily, JD, 2014, THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY? Volume 15, Issue
3, , Pages 651-652 CK]
Garnering

robust national support and leadership is critical for the

improvement of marine pollution given the interconnectivity between landlocked
regions, coastal regions, and the ocean. Unfortunately, the JOC gave this category
a C, noting that although the NOP laid good groundwork, it
lacked communication, stakeholder engagement, and tangible
results. 162 Although the NOC successfully released strategic action
plans and the draft Implementation Plan, and organized the National
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop in June 2011, the
Councils work is far from complete.163 Comments submitted during various stages of
NOP implementation reflect the disconnect between stakeholders, notably industry stakeholders, and the

some raised concerns about the effect of adopting a

precautionary approach as suggested in one of the NOPs guiding stewardship principles.
NOC. For example,

The language of the relevant principle read: Decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes

Decision-making will
also be guided by a precautionary approach as reflected in the Rio
Declaration of 1992, which states in pertinent part, [w]here there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation. 164 Many feared
that this precautionary approach might mandate action or prohibit
activities, conceivably to the detriment of certain industries. However,
should be informed by and consistent with the best available science.

the NOP Task Force clarified the misconception by stating in part, precaution is a tool or approach . . . it is

In order to
garner support from all stakeholders, particularly in the current
political environment, it is essential that the NOC regularly involve
all stakeholders during the actual implementation and future
development of the NOPs objectives and actions.
clear that the precautionary approach does not mandate action or prohibit activities.165

Ocean policy unpopular GOP has voted against the NOP

agenda every time so far
Madsen, Pacific Fisheries Management Council
chairwoman, 12
(Stephanie, vice president of the Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, Summer, 2012, Pacific Fisheries Review, National Ocean
Policy: A New Bureaucracy That Could Compromise Regional Fisheries
Management,
http://www.pacificfisheriesreview.com/pfr_june12_story6.php, accessed
6/27/14, GNL)

The Administrations draft NOP Implementation Plan proposes 53

federal governmental actions and nearly 300 milestones, with 158 of
those milestones to be completed in 2012 or 2013. Congress is
cutting funding for most federal agencies and has not provided new
funding for NOP implementation, so where is the money coming from to fund these new
activities? Commercial fishing interests are concerned that money has been, and will be, diverted from
under-funded core NOAA Fisheries science and management programs to pay for a new bureaucracy and
for new activities not authorized by Congress. Proponents are well aware of the tenuous authority of the
Administration to implement the NOP, yet they move ahead without apparent concern. These same
proponents, however, insisted previously that Congressional action to create a national ocean policy was
necessary.

NOP proponents supported bills introduced in the previous

four Congresses that proposed a national ocean policy, as well as
many of the councils and committees subsequently established
through Executive Order. None of the bills introduced in successive
Congresses passed. In fact, none passed either body of Congress.
Now, without Congressional authorization or dedicated appropriations, the Administration states that
funding to implement the NOP, including ocean zoning activities, will come from repurposing existing
resources. The commercial fishing industry does not support repurposing core NOAA Fisheries science
and management programs to establish a new oceans bureaucracy that at the very least creates

It is a hollow argument advanced to

date by the Administration that repurposing funds creates
efficiencies when, at least in the case of fisheries management, it
creates confusing, overlapping jurisdictional lines and duplicates
existing resource management processes. In May, the House of
Representatives voted to prohibit certain federal agencies, including
NOAA, from spending taxpayer dollars on the NOP , in large part,
because Congress has not authorized many of the activities
contained in the NOP implementation plan. Hopefully, the Senate will act, as well.
duplicative fisheries management authority.

The Administration could show good faith by not moving forward with establishing ocean zoning bodies
until either Congress acts to define their scope of authority or the Administration appropriately limits their
mandate. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska fishing industry are proud of our progressive and innovative
approach to properly managing ocean resources. And we are proud of our collaborative working
relationship with state and federal fishery managers. We do not welcome that relationship being put at risk
by implementation of an NOP that is being rushed forward without regard for constituents concerns.

Ocean policies are historically unpopular National Ocean

Policy proves
Stauffer, Surfrider Foundation ocean program manager,
6/1/14
[Pete, 6/1/14, Surfrider Foundation, Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our
National Ocean Policy, http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congresstakes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy, accessed 7/9/14, GNL]
When the National Ocean Policy was established by President
Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many
shortcomings of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean
management. Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a
bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration
across all levels of government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable
energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships (ROPs) that empower
states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the

In just three years, important progress has been made, despite

a glaring lack of support from Congress. An Implementation Plan has
ocean.

been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are

taking to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies.
Collaborative projects are moving forward to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage
stakeholders. And finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning

Of
course, such success stories do not resonate well in Washington
D.C., where controversy rules the day and political parties
instinctively oppose each others proposals. As an initiative of the
Obama Presidency, the policy has suffered from partisan attacks,
despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such political
to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users.

gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean
Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of
Congress. That is why Congress needs to hear from people who care about (and depend upon) the ocean.
Our ocean ecoystems are too important to the nation's well-being to be subject to the usual politics. It's
time for Congress to provide a level of support and funding that's commensurate with efforts being made
on the ground. Let's elevate support for our National Ocean Policy across the political spectrum!

Ocean policies are unpopular with the GOP despite

success stories NOP proves
Stauffer, Surfrider Foundation ocean program manager, 12
[Pete, 5/7/12, Surfrider Foundation, Why I Support the National Ocean Policy
(And You Should Too, http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/why-isupport-the-national-ocean-policy-and-so-should-you, accessed 7/9/14, GNL]
So when President Obama established the National Ocean Policy (NOP) through an executive order in July
of 2010, it wasnt just another government initiative for me. It was a sign of hope that finally a real attempt
was being made to address the many shortcomings of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean
management, highlighted by the U.S. Ocean Commission, the Joint Oceans Commission, and many others.
In short, it was the promise of a new era in ocean and coastal stewardship. Now, less than two years later,

The National Ocean Council is

building on the momentum of public listening sessions held around
the country and finalizing an Implementation Plan of federal actions
to address key issues such as water quality, ecosystem protection,
science support, and marine spatial planning. Meanwhile, regional ocean
there are indeed encouraging signs of progress.

partnerships are coalescing in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the West Coast, and elsewhere, bringing
together states, Tribes, ocean stakeholders, and the public to address place-based needs and priorities.

despite these promising developments, the future of the National

Ocean Policy is in jeopardy, plagued by a lack of support and funding
from congress. Just last month, yet another measure was introduced in the House to restrict
Yet,

funding and implementation of the policy this despite the fact that the policy is being advanced with
existing agency resources!

Furthermore, several Republican leaders including

Rep. Doc Hastings (WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources
Committee, have seized on the NOP as a partisan issue, labeling
marine spatial planning as burdensome and accusing the
administration of regulatory overreach (I wont elaborate on Hastings proposals to
vastly expand offshore drilling or the donations he receives from oil & gas companies). But the partisanship
and political attacks in Washington D.C. are obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National
Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country despite the lack of support from the
federal government. From the Pacific Northwest to New England, the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Islands,
regions are making real advances in ocean mapping, habitat restoration, renewable energy siting, and
other key areas. In my home state of Oregon, a process to create a marine spatial plan for wave energy
development has brought together community leaders, fishermen, surfers, environmentalists, and
developers as part of an effective public collaboration. The expected outcome: a plan that will both protect
the environment and existing ocean uses, while also advancing renewable energy opportunities.

Ocean policy is unlikely to be successful other issues

take priority even if popular as LOST proves
McCarthy, Center for New American Security intern, &
Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service professor, 9
[Michael McCarthy, Joseph S. Nye, 12/16/9,Center for New American Security,
A New Approach to Ocean Policy, http://www.cnas.org/blog/a-new-approachto-ocean-policy-6301#.U73DifldUmM, accessed 7/9/14, GNL]

If you put your ear up to the Oval Office and listen very carefully, you
can hear the gentle sound of ocean waves lapping. Thats because the
presidentially-mandated Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (hereafter the task force) has just released

We have
covered issues relating to the task force periodically on this blog,
but I wanted to create a one-stop reference on the task force for
you, dear readers. President Obama authorized the task force on June 12 (pdf). It is an
interagency effort, guided by the Council on Environmental Quality
and consisting of representatives from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, and other agencies. The task force was charged
its full report to supplement the interim report (pdf) already released in September.

with developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and
restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved
stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. (Note: though I hail from the greatest city
in the country, Im not going to focus on the Great Lakes here). To this end, task force members traveled
the country and held a series of public meetings (pdf all) to gather information on ocean issues. These
matters may appear to be solely the purview of environmental policy makers, but the worlds oceans raise
major security issues for U.S. national security policy makers as well. The interim report notes that the

oceans play a critical role in our Nation's transportation, economy,

and trade, as well as in the global mobility and readiness of our
Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and
security. It goes on to state that: Our national security interests are tightly linked to navigational
rights and freedoms, as well as to operational flexibility. Our national security and economic interests are
also linked to our ability to secure U.S. sovereign rights over resources in extensive marine areas off our
coasts, to promote and protect U.S. interests in the marine environment, and to ensure that our maritime
interests are respected and considered internationally. One would be hard-pressed to find a nation that

the United States Senate has historically defined

U.S. maritime limitations differently from a number of nations. Many
United Nations member states have held themselves to an
agreement about how to use and share the worlds oceans: the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But despite
would argue otherwise. But

the best intentions of U.S. treaty negotiators, the Senate voted against ratification of the UNCLOS after it

Political support for ratification has ebbed and

flowed since then, with detractors mainly arguing that the UNCLOS
will contract U.S. sovereignty, damage the economy, and threaten
national security. The Bush administration ultimately favored
ratification, and so does the current administration, but the Senate
has never voted in favor despite periodic attempts to move the
treaty out of committee. Perhaps most important, there have been indications for years that
was submitted in 1982.

the uniformed services support ratification. Gen Richard Myers (USAF, ret), former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, argued for ratification before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, saying (pdf):
Sustaining our overseas presence, responding to complex emergencies, prosecuting the global war on
terrorism, and conducting operations far from our shores are only possible if our ships and aircraft are able
to make unencumbered use of the sea and air lines of communication. Our naval and air forces must be
able to take advantage of the customary, established navigational rights that the Law of the Sea
Convention codifies. We strongly support US accession to the Convention. In addition, the Navys Judge
Advocate General corps hosts a document on its website called Eight National Security Myths: United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (pdf) which dispels the notion (among others) that the UNCLOS
will subject the U.S. military to international tribunals. Well be watching to find out the actual policies that
follow on the new reports recommendations. It will be especially interesting to see if the administration
can summon the political capital necessary to ratify the UNCLOS after such a contentious year in Congress.
Whatever happens, I dont think those gentle waves will stop lapping at the Oval Office door anytime soon.

Congressional Opposition to Ocean Policy

Ocean policy has no support
Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court legal extern, 14
[Emily, Spring 2014, Vermont Law School, THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY:
CAN IT REDUCE MARINE POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN
BUREAUCRACY?,
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2014/04/Migliaccio_FORPRINT1.pdf, p. 646,
accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
Obama Administration issued Executive Order 13,547, intending for
Congress to "show support for effective implementation of the NOP,
including the establishment of an ocean investment fund "--the hope
being that Congress would codify the Order in subsequent
legislation. n130 At present, Congress is wrestling with some bills
relating to the NOP; however, not all proposals support the policy. For
example, the House has adopted an amendment to the Water Resources
and Development Act ("WRDA") n131 that would bar the Obama
Administration from implementing marine spatial planning under the
The

WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities that receive money from
the bill from implementing such planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." n132 Then again, also
before Congress is a bill that seeks to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund
programs and activities to "restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their

For this bill to pass,

House and Senate members must agree to prioritize ocean
conservation and research, and allocate funds to [*647] the initiative. Although the NOP is
appearing on the Congressional docket, it is hard to find hope for successful ocean
reform in the current congressional atmosphere.
habitats and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. . . ." n133

Energy Lobby Opposition to Ocean Policy

Powerful energy lobbies hate ocean policy- they have lots
of clout on the floor
Eilperin, Washington Post Political reporter, 12
(Juliet, 10/28/12, Washington Post, National ocean policy sparks partisan
fight, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nationalocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c39408fbe6a4b_story.html, Accessed 7/7/14, CLF)

Two influential groups anglers and energy firms have joined

Republicans in questioning the administrations approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a
piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal
areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen
that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later.
Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down, said Michael
Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members
include the nations major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the
White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the

The National Ocean

Policy Coalition a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas
firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests has
galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works
as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for
the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the
groups executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the
development of the policy and that his group worries about the potential
economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational
activity. Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair
policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election.

the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the
books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race,
Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim
Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against
Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this
article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional,
this is the first issue Ive seen thats become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.

Ocean Environmental Protection Controversial

Oceanic environmental protection draws fire from a
variety of groups
Eilperin, Washington Post House of Representatives
Reporter, 12
[Juliet, 10/28/12, The Washington Post, National ocean policy sparks
partisan fight, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/healthscience/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html,
accessed 7/6/14, AC]
President Obama announced Tuesday his intent to make a broad
swath of the central Pacific Ocean off-limits to fishing, energy
exploration and other activities. The proposal, slated to go into
effect later this year after a comment period, could create the
worlds largest marine sanctuary and double the area of ocean
globally that is fully protected. Im going to use my authority to protect some of our

nations most precious marine landscapes, Obama said in a video to participants at a State Department
conference, adding that while the ocean is being degraded, We cannot afford to let that happen. Thats
why the United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans. The announcement first reported
earlier Tuesday by The Washington Post is part of a broader push on maritime issues by an

The oceans effort, led

is likely to
spark a new political battle with Republicans over the scope of
Obamas executive powers. The president will also direct federal agencies to develop a
administration that has generally favored other environmental priorities.

by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D. Podesta,

comprehensive program aimed at combating seafood fraud and the global black-market fish trade. In
addition, the administration finalized a rule last week allowing the public to nominate new marine
sanctuaries off U.S. coasts and in the Great Lakes. Obama has used his executive authority 11 times to
safeguard areas on land, but scientists and activists have been pressing him to do the same for untouched
underwater regions. President George W. Bush holds the record for creating U.S. marine monuments,
declaring four during his second term, including the one that Obama plans to expand. Under the proposal,
according to two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be
expanded from almost 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles all of it adjacent to seven
islands and atolls controlled by the United States. The designation would include waters up to 200 nautical
miles offshore from the territories. Its the closest thing Ive seen to the pristine ocean, said Enric Sala, a
National Geographic explorer-in-residence who has researched the areas reefs and atolls since 2005.

Obama has faced criticism from a variety of groups including cattle

ranchers, law enforcement officers and ATV enthusiasts over his expansion of
protections for federal lands. The ocean area under consideration, by contrast,
encompasses uninhabited islands in a remote region with sparse economic activity. Even so, the
designation is expected to face objections from the U.S. tuna fleet
that operates in the region. Fish caught in the area account for up to
3 percent of the annual U.S. tuna catch in the western and central
Pacific, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. When Bush created the
monument in 2009, he exempted sport fishing to address industry opposition.

Ocean conservation policy saps lawmakers political

capital
Sielen, Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
senior fellow, 4/16/14

[Alan B., Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for
Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and former Deputy Assistant Administrator for International
Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4/16/2014, Foreign
Affairs, Sea Change: How to Save the Oceans
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change,
accessed 7/7/14, GNL]
The oceans of studies on dying seas have done nothing to stop their devastation. In a 2011 report, the
Oxford-based International Program on the State of the Ocean wrote that the planet faced losing marine

Last month,
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reported that the effects of human-induced climate change are
already far-reaching. It also singled out ocean acidification. As the
oceans absorb higher levels of carbon, the more acidic water
threatens coral reefs, shellfish, and other marine life. The experts only
species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation.

confirm what people around the world see every day: marshland, once teeming with wildlife, paved over;
subsistence fishermen in poor countries driven from the ocean by industrial fishing; recreational fishermen
chasing fewer and smaller fish farther out to sea; surfers getting hepatitis shots before entering sewagecontaminated waters; families on vacation snorkeling through coral bone-yards. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the United States largest estuary, harvests of native oysters have fallen to less than one percent of

There is
no shortage of international recommendations, action plans, and
other prescriptions for restoring the oceans health. The 1982 United Nations
historic levels due to the combined effects of overfishing, disease, and habitat destruction.

Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development, and the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)
all put forward different ways to protect the oceans from pollution and overfishing, preserve biological
diversity, and help developing countries build the scientific and institutional capacities to run effective

The calls for action have brought

some victories, such as international rules limiting what oil tankers
discharge into the sea, a global ban on the disposal of nuclear waste
into the ocean, and the creation of marine reserves, or protected
areas of the ocean. But as much as these measures helped, they
have not eliminated all the other threats to the seas. The problem is
not ignorance but political will. At the most basic level, governments and
industries are simply not doing enough of the right things . The situation is
conservation and management programs of their own.

especially dire in poor countries, which have fewer assets for managing and protecting marine resources.

Even wealthy countries, such as the United States, which has made admirable
progress in reducing air pollution, providing safe drinking water, and managing hazardous waste, continue

to struggle to stem the flow of pollutants into the ocean. Diminished

trust in public institutions and the political process makes
agreement on even the simplest solutions more difficult. But the longer
government and society delay effective action, the worse things get.

Conservative Opposition to Ocean Policy

Conservatives oppose ocean policy it is Obama
overreach
Eilperin, The Washington Post House of Representatives
reporter, 13
(Juliet, 4-16-13, The Washington Post, White House finalizes national ocean
policy, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/postpolitics/wp/2013/04/16/white-house-finalizes-national-ocean-policy/, accessed
7-12-14, CLF)
The White House on Tuesday issued its final plan for managing the nation's oceans, outlining a strategy
that aims to coordinate the work of more than two dozen agencies and reconcile competing
interests including fishing, offshore energy exploration and recreational activities. While

environmentalists as well as some fishing industry officials and state

authorities have embraced the National Ocean Policy, it has
infuriated conservatives, who describe it as an example of how
the Obama administration is overreaching and seeking to limit the
rights of recreational anglers and others. Nancy Sutley, who chairs the Council on
Environmental Quality and co-chairs the group overseeing the policy, said in a statement the plan
embodies the type of efficient, collaborative government that taxpayers, communities, and businesses
expect from their federal government. John P. Holdren, who directs the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and co-chairs the National Ocean Council along with Sutley, said the plan will

help
advance relevant science and its application to decision-making
regarding the ocean. Those measures include sharing data on severe storms and sea level rise,
as well as melting ice in the Arctic. Several House Republicans have predicted the policy will expand the
ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to regulate land-based activities since
water from there eventually flows to the ocean:

GOP Opposition to Ocean Policy

GOP hates ocean policies fear new policy allows for more
regulations
Conathan, Center for American Progress Ocean Policy
Director, 13
[Michael, 11/19/13, Center For American Progress, Establish the National
Endowment for the Oceans,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/11/19/79615/establishthe-national-endowment-for-the-oceans/, accessed 6/27/14 CK]
Prior to final passage of its WRDA bill, the House voted 225193 to include an amendment by Rep. Bill
Flores (R-TX) that would prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersthe primary agency regulated by

Rep. Flores has

successfully included several similar anti-National Ocean Policy
provisions to bills in the past, despite its potential benefits for coastal states and regions.
The National Ocean Policy, initiated under President George W. Bush
and implemented via executive order by President Barack Obama in
2010, has become a punching bag for Flores and other
conservatives, particularly those on the Natural Resources
Committee. They irrationally fear that it could make an end run
around congressional authority and lead to imposition of new
regulations. In reality, the policy permits government agencies to
operate more efficiently and reduce duplication of effort while allowing
WRDAfrom participating in any activities related to the National Ocean Policy.

different regions of the country to prioritize the ocean issues and concerns that matter most to them.

Ocean policy perceived an executive power grab NOP

proves
Rep. Fleming, R-Louisiana, 12
[Rep. John Fleming, US Representative 4th Congressional District of Louisiana
and chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans and Insular Affairs, 3/30/12, The Hill, National Ocean Policy is an
executive power grab, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-aenvironment/219309-national-ocean-policy-is-an-executive-power-grab,
accessed 7/9/14, GNL]
Perhaps the simplest way to describe this policy and council is to
envision a national zoning board for oceans and all of the inland
communities and activities that might affect the oceans. Youve probably

dealt with a local zoning board that keeps order between residential neighborhoods and busy commercials
areas. You may not always agree with their decisions, but we can all appreciate local control over such

President Obamas National Ocean Policy takes zoning to a

massive scale, giving Washington pencil pushers more power to
decide what activities are acceptable in the ocean zones they create.
And when federal agencies are authorizing activities, the converse can
be assumed: they will close off other activities, and limit authorized
activities only to approved zones. The uncertainty that results will
further limit economic growth. Coastal communities have already felt the pain of tough
matters.

economic times. Fishermen are having a hard time making ends meet and many are seeing their harvest
levels reduced, while their cost of doing business continues to rise. The House subcommittee I chair has

heard testimony describing how harvest levels have been driven down by the lack of agency-funded stock

proposed new policy threatens

to take more money from fishery surveys, and will create more
closures. To make matters worse, this new National Ocean Policy will reach far
inland with new zoning plans, and could use ocean water quality as a
way of threatening even farming and forestry practices. The
presidents plan enhances uncertainty by giving precedent to
ecosystem health over the economic impact of human activities, even if
assessments and the closing of fishing grounds. Now, this

those activities were previously authorized or occurring in an area. That means government bureaucrats,
working behind closed doors, may decide that their views on climate change or water quality both
priorities in the policy will win out over the longstanding interests of people who have depended for
decades on the oceans and waterways for their livelihood. Imagine putting those decisions, along with the
vague and undefined policy goals of the executive order, in the hands of special interest groups whose

The litigation and court challenges

will be endless, and the permits that fishermen and coastal
businesses need to continue making a living will be hard to come by .
agenda is to abolish virtually all human activity.

The presidents plan, which has flown under the transparency and accountability radar, lists nearly 60
milestones for federal agencies to accomplish this year as they implement the policy, with another 92
milestones slated for 2013. Yet no federal agency has requested funding for these activities. That means
existing missions and management activities of several federal agencies will be put at risk because federal
dollars will be re-purposed to support this policy. President Obamas National Ocean Policy should be
authorized by specific legislation and funded through the regular appropriations process. Implementing
this power grab through an executive order, with funds diverted from other Congressionally-appropriated

Existing laws already manage fisheries, and we

dont need a costly, massive, new, job-destroying layer of
bureaucracy to centralize more power in Washington, and jeopardize
the liberties of hard-working citizens. Until Congress receives answers to the
programs is simply wrong.

questions we have asked about the authority and funding for this National Ocean Policy, I will continue to
oppose this policy.

GOP Opposition to Ocean Spending

Republicans hate ocean investmentempirically prove
Valentine, Climate Progress reporter, 14
[Katie, ClimateProgress Reporter, 3/29/14, Climate Progress, One
House Republicans Latest Plan to Undermine Climate Research,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/29/3420703/noaa-bill-moreweather-research/, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
After years of attempts at cutting the agencys funding, House
Republicans want the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to focus more on predicting storms and less on studying
climate change. The House is set to vote next week on a bill that would force NOAA to prioritize its
forecasting over its climate research. The bill, introduced last June by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), wouldnt
require NOAA to stop its climate research, but it would require the agency to prioritize weather-related
activities, including the provision of improved weather data, forecasts, and warnings for the protection of

Among other things, it

would direct the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
NOAAs research and development arm which studies weather,
climate and other environmental forces, to create new weather
programs, including one focused on tornado warnings. Bridenstine, whose
life and property and the enhancement of the national economy.

home state of Oklahoma was ravaged by severe tornadoes last year, said that the bills intent was to
protect lives and property by shifting funds from climate change research to severe weather forecasting
research. But though scientists are still trying to determine what, if any, impact climate change has on
tornadoes, science has shown that climate change is a driver of other forms of extreme weather.
Bridenstine is also a known climate denier who last year asked President Obama to apologize to Oklahoma
for investing in climate change research. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet
stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on

Congress has
tried to influence what NOAA spends its time and money on in the
past, but it hasnt always been in line with a pro-weather research
agenda. In 2011, a House-passed billcut funding for NOAA satellite
programs, which play a key role in weather forecasting, and in 2012,
Republican lawmakers proposed further cuts to the satellite
program. NOAA was also hit by last summers across-the-board
sequester cuts, which forced NOAA to furlough employees so it could
keep its weather forecasting and satellite operations intact. Already,
NOAA spends more on weather forecasting than it does on climate
research. In 2013, NOAA spent about $742 million on local weather warnings and forecasts, compared
global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning, he said.

to the $108 million it spent on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and $176 million it spent on
climate research. And though the link between climate change and severe weather has grown clearer,
NOAA has called for more research into the potential link between climate change and tornadoes, which is
not as well understood.

GOP Opposition to Ocean Regulation

Setting ocean regulations empirically conflicts with oil
drilling massively unpopular by G.O.P.
Greenberg, Conservative Outlooks, 11

[Carol, 6-23-11, Conservative Outlook, Obama raids SPR, oil rigs will be
going, going, GONE, http://conservative-outlooks.com/2011/06/23/obamaraids-spr-oil-rigs-will-be-going-going-gone/, accessed 7-9-14, AAZ]
The above as I am sure everyone can recognize as a picture of an off-shore oil rig. Nice to see, right? When
they are in your own backyard. Like say, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, and off the Atlantic coast. But

oil rigs are disappearing. Rapidly. As a result of President

Obamas energy policy that is costing jobs and choking the economy.
12 of these rigs have gotten fed up with Obama and his bureaucracy which
includes the Department of the Interior (Ken Salazar, Secretary), the EPA, and
the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management and Regulation
Enforcement (BOEMRE, Michael Bromwich heads) and moved to sunnier shores. Brazil, the north
these

Atlantic and off the coast of Venezuela. Yep, to Hugo Chavez territory. I had the pleasure of being part of a

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA #5), Rep. Kevin

McCarthy (R-CA #22) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA #1). All are part of the
Energy Action Team in the House. Most of you are probably aware that today Obama
raided the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 30 million barrels out of 727 million
conference call with

barrels. Enough to keep the U.S. supplied with oil and gasoline for a mere 2 days, at the most. A political
move which was a reaction to U.S. consumers ire about the rising cost of gasoline

and

yet

this

action did not create one job. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1973
and is meant to be used only when a dire national emergency exists. It has been tapped only twice before:
once under President George H.W. Bush during the first Gulf War when the Iraqis set fire to oil fields and
once again under George W. Bush during hurricane Katrina when rigs in the Gulf of Mexico were at risk.
Where is the emergency today, Mr. Obama? It is a crisis of your own making .

Slow-walking of
oil and gas rig permits, ping-ponging bureaucracy WITHIN the EPA, not between other
agencies. A moratorium in the Gulf, which a federal judge has ruled twice is illegal, yet DOI Secretary Ken
Salazar is not in jail for civil contempt, as any other person would be .

The permatorium has

cost over 13,000 jobs, and one company even has been investigating moving shop to Africa.
Shell has spent over $4 billion in the permit-process in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, only to be told NO! over
and over again. When the Department of Energy was created in 1977 with the mission to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil only 1/3 of our oil was purchased from overseas. Today, 2/3 of our oil is

But the House Republican

Conference, the House Natural Resources Committee and the House
Energy and Commerce Committee have all introduced common sense
solutions to our domestic energy policy which would save and create jobs and stimulate the economy.
purchased from countries who dont like us very much.

Several are The Keystone Project, which would create and utilize a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf off of
Texas. Areas in Alaska would be open to drilling again. The permit process for oil and gas companies must
be done in an expeditious manner. The House has passed bills with bi-partisan support with the goal of

Its
time for the American public to wake up and realize where the fault
lies: not with the oil and gas companies, or the Wall Street gurus; but with the present
administration. When enough of these roadblocks appear it is time to take action. The public must
making the U.S. energy independent, however they have been blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid.

demand immediate results of their congressional representatives whether they be Republican or

Democrat.

Republicans are opposed to new ocean regulations

previous years prove
Conathan, American Progress ocean policy director, 12
[Michael, 4-13-12, Center for American Progress, Fish on Fridays: Sensible
Ocean Policy Falling Victim to Political Games,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fishon-fridays-sensible-ocean-policy-falling-victim-to-political-games/, accessed 79-14, AAZ]
Even in the bitterest partisan times, ocean issues tend to exist
outside the traditional political boxing ring. They usually foster alliances based far
more on geography than on party affiliation. Members who represent coastal states and districts usually
recognize the value of sustaining and investing in our valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them

But in recent months the escalation of rancor

and polarization encompassed even the normally temperate issue of
ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House Committee on Natural
Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack Obamas
National Ocean Policy public enemy number one. Ever since its rollout, the policyimplemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of
guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes has been
taking fire from opponents who cite it as an overreach that would
spawn job-killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (RWA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this
country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA).
more than their inland counterparts.

Ocean Regulation Unpopular

Ocean regulations are unpopular and costly
World Bulletin News Desk 6/24/14
(Major world news network, 6/24/14, World Bulletin, Report warns world's
oceans at point of collapse,
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/139468/report-warns-worlds-oceans-atpoint-of-collapse, accessed 6/30/14, BCG)
A new report by a group of former world leaders, including ex-prime minister
Paul Martin, says fixing our oceans will require unpopular, expensive
changes. 64 per cent of the ocean surface isnt under the control and protection of a national
government and The Global Ocean Commission has put forward a report
on the declining health of the planets high seas. The commission is
a combination of public and private sector figures, including former
heads of state and ministers as well as business people, supported by scientific and
economic advisors working on ways to reverse the degradation of the ocean and address the failures of
high seas governance.

Ocean regulation policies are unpopular with coastal

voters
Sterne and Wilmot, Ocean Champions co-founders, 6

[Jack and David, co-founders of Ocean Champions which is a organization

that supports politicians who support regulating and protecting oceans, 3/1/6,
Mother Jones, Oceans Policy: It's a Matter of Leadership The problems facing
our oceans have political solutions.,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/oceans-policy-its-matterleadership?page=2, accessed 7/9/14, GNL]
The politics of the ocean are often very different from other
environmental issues. On the one hand, the oceans have a few tireless champions like Rep.
Sam Farr (D-Ca.) who represents the Monterey Bay area. But consider that Rep. Barney
Frank (D-Mass.), with generally one of the best environmental voting
records Congress, has been leading the fight against tough
overfishing regulations in federal law, largely because he has an
active concentration of commercial fishermen in his district who
could place his re-election in jeopardy if he is not responsive to their
demands, however short-sighted they may be. And the senator who has shown the most leadership
on fisheries policy is Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK.), better known for his efforts to open ANWR. To help ocean
conservationists build political power, in 2003 we launched the first political organizations for the oceans,
Ocean Champions and Ocean Champions Voter Fund, to help politicians who care about the oceans get
elected to Congress (and to defeat bad ones, like Rep. Richard Pombo and to brand oceans as a political
issue. Our early efforts have been promising. For instance, Ocean Champions endorsed and supported 14
candidates in 2004; 11 were elected, including two brand-new members of Congress (one Republican and
one Democrat) who are already taking a leadership role in pushing for positive fisheries legislation and
opposing efforts to open up our oceans and coasts to new drilling for oil and gas. As Mother Jones' series of

More resources must be directed by both

national and grassroots organizations to the task of awakening the
public. This is an issue that should be even more compelling to the public than global warming, if only
because so much of the public recreates at the ocean . It will require an unprecedented
public relations campaign, far outstripping anything that has gone
articles makes clear, though, time is short.

before it. Such a successful campaign is going to require ocean conservationists to focus on a single
message, one that combines the seriousness of the threat with optimism that it can be overcome. That
message must be delivered by credible messengers over and over again until the public demands action.
Are we willing to create the kind of sustained and strategic campaign that persuades the public and our
political leaders that this is a crisis that threatens our future as a species? Are we also willing to invest in
electoral politics, to help elect members of both parties who will fight for the oceans? These questions
must be asked, and they must be answered.

Its a matter of leadership.

GOP Opposition to National Ocean Policy (NOP)

NOP is on the chopping block new ocean policy will be
no different
Herzog, UCLA Law Environmental Law and Policy Fellow,
13
[Megan, April 17, 2013, Legal Planet (site run by the UCLA and Berkeley Law
Schools) Obama Administration Releases National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan, http://legal-planet.org/2013/04/17/obamaadministration-releases-national-ocean-policy-implementation-plan/,
accessed 6/27/14 CK]
Environmental groups, federal agency representatives, many federal and state lawmakers, and other

industry
representatives and federal lawmakers, howevermost notably,
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chair of the House Natural Resources
Committeehave made it their mission to destroy the Policy. Wait,
some people actually are opposed to this the Policy? The National
Ocean Policy has been surprisingly controversial for an initiative
that is focused on streamlining decision making and using existing
agency resources more efficiently, and which explicitly does not
involve promulgation of new regulations. Following enactment of the Policy,
House lawmakers (with the support of oil and gas producers,
commercial fisherman, shippers, and other industry representatives)
held various hearings questioning the intended purpose and
consequences of the Policy (see, e.g., an October 2011 House hearing on A Plan for Further
Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities) and even made multiple attempts
to block funding for implementation based on a vague claim that the
National Ocean Policy will result in ocean zoning. Hopefully, the commonocean users around the country applauded the National Ocean Policy. Some

sense approach of the Implementation Plan will help to put these ungrounded fears to bed.

Sen. Rubio (R-FL) Opposes Ocean Policy

Rubio (R-FL) doesnt like new ocean policy
Conathan, American Progress Ocean Policy Director, 13
[Michael, 4-26-13, American Progress, An Ocean Champion in the
White House,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/04/26/
61493/an-ocean-champion-in-the-white-house/, accessed 7-9-14,
AKS]
One aspect of the plan that drew a great deal of consternation is its
call for comprehensive ocean management on a regional scalein
effect, the development of regional plans to prioritize certain ocean
activities in appropriate areas. Many coastal regions in this country are already
participating in what the implementation plan calls regional planning bodies, which are coordinated
management entities among neighboring states. In fact, several of these regional ocean partnerships
predate even the first draft of the National Ocean Policy released in 2010. While the final implementation
plan clearly articulates the benefits of a regional approach to ocean management and planning, it also
recognizes that differences in priorities, problems, and ecosystems exist across different areas of the
country. In the Northeast, for example, plans aim to resolve conflicts between future offshore-wind-energy
development and existing fishing interests, while the Pacific Coasts priorities will differ since offshore wind
cannot be developed there at this time because of technological limitations. Alaska has resisted
implementing any of the principles of comprehensive ocean planning at all, prompting sharp criticism from
its congressional delegation of the draft implementation plan that would have required regional planning
bodies to be developed in all regions. Many Alaskans viewed this imposition as top-down government
meddling in what they consider to be state affairs. Recognizing the need for each region to come to its own
conclusions about how best to manage the areas that it knows best, the final implementation plan stresses
that regional ocean-planning efforts are voluntary, not mandatory. States may choose to participate on
regional planning bodies, reads the final version, which goes on to say that, Should all states in a region

Even with these

changes to the regional ocean-planning structure, the plan received
a lukewarm reception from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the newly minted
ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. During a hearing earlier
this week, Sen. Rubio expressed his concern about the plan, saying
that, Too often the administration puts forth voluntary
documents like the National Ocean Policy that, when all is said and
done, were faced with a new regulatory regime with questionable
value and severe economic consequences.
not choose to participate a regional planning body will not be established.

Generic--- Ocean Policy Unpopular

Public opposes ocean development - view it as
environmentally destructive
Bricklemyer et al 4 (Eugene, Shelby Smith, Cuauhtemoc Leon, Boris

Graizbord and Richard Kyle Paisley, "PRESERVATION OF COASTAL SPACES A

DIALOGUE ON OREGON'S EXPERIENCE WITH INTEGRATED LAND USE
MANAGEMENT," 9 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 239, lexis)
recent reports of the impacts of continued
development. The United States Department of Commerce's National Ocean Services (NOS) recently
The reality of this impression is borne out by

released a national eutrophication report detailing the effects of nutrient enrichment in over ninety percent
of the estuarine surface of the United States and the Mississippi River Plume. n9 Of those waters surveyed,
the NOS found that over sixty-five percent suffered from moderate to high degradation due to nutrient
enrichment. n10 Most discouraging was the study's conclusion as to current trends. According to the

continuing development combined [*242] with the present level and

types of controls will only lead to a worsening situation in the future . n11 Thus, it
study,

is not surprising that professional coastal conservationists are concerned. Given the experience of many
years of study and the observation of development along the Charleston-area coast, Dana Beach,
executive director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, has recently finished an assessment
from the front lines for the Pew Oceans Commission. n12 A summary of Mr. Beach's observations and
recommendations gathered from the vantage point of work with a heavily stressed coastal zone may be
useful in setting the stage for our discussion. Mr. Beach's basic conclusion was that, while federal law and
ensuing state CZMA programs may be helpful, they have not stopped the destruction because the CZMA
programs do not focus on the core problem. While such programs can determine at the site level the
appropriateness, for instance, of a berm or dock permit, they generally do not provide large-scale regional
growth management, development control or zoning regulation. Human occupation density on the coast is
already five times that of the interior of the United States, and all indications point toward a continuing
increase, especially with the added pressures of affluent retiring baby boomers. Comprehensive planning
for smart (or, in some places, no) growth is imperative. n13 n10. Id. at 9. n11. Id. at 43 .

No less
arbiter of public opinion than the New York Times has repeatedly stated
editorially that the results of studies conducted by the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy confirm that, among a handful of the most serious
problems threatening the health of oceans and the ecosystems they support, overdevelopment of the coast is a major culprit. See Still at Sea, N.Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2005, at
A14; Blueprints for Healthier Oceans, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2004, at A28. n12. See Dana Beach, South
Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems
in the United States, available at http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/water pollution sprawl.pdf (last visited
May 26, 2004). As an interesting historical aside, before and while the CZMA was being passed, there was
a simultaneous but failed attempt to pass a Henry Jackson-sponsored and President Nixon-supported Land
Use Policy Act and Planning Assistance Act, S.268, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973). This was an attempt
to adopt a national focus to protect and plan for any development of land of critical environmental
concern, including coastal and estuarine zones. Such land was to be managed by the Department of the
Interior. The law was intended to be process-oriented and programmatic. See Baird B. Brown, The Recent
Trend in Federal Land Use Regulation, 10 Willamette L.J. 464 (1974) [hereinafter Brown, The Recent Trend
in Federal Land Use Regulation].

n13. Brown, The Recent Trend in Federal Land Use Regulation, supra note 12,
at 13.

Public opposes ocean development latent feelings about

ocean protection
Spruill 97 (Vikki N., President and CEO of Ocean Conservancy since 2006,
Executive Director, Sea Web (not profit strategic communications firm
dedicated to ocean research) U.S. PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Oceanography Vol. 10 No 3.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-3_spruill.pdf)
Government Needs to Do More; Personal Action Preferred to Joining Organizations; Ocean Exploration

In a country where polls indicate that the majority of

the public wants the fed- eral government out of their lives, 85%
said they believed the government needed to do more to help
protect the ocean. Per- haps most surprisingly, an overwhelming number (72%)
believed funding for ocean exploration was a more important
priority than funding for space exploration (17%). Questioned on the kinds of
actions people are prepared to take on behalf of the ocean, those polled indicated that Americans
are most likely to engage in personal action and less likely to
become involved in lobbying, participate in group activities, or join
local or national envi- ronmental organizations. Roughly one- half (49%) said
Favored over Space

they would be almost cer- tain to recycle their used motor oil, and 42% said they would be almost certain
to pick up litter at the beach. A much smaller number (20%) said they would be prepared to pay higher
water bills to build better sewage treatment plants; 18% indi- cated that they would be very likely to
contact politicians to urge they take posi- tive actions to help the ocean; 12% said they would join an
environmental organi- zation; and only 10% said they would be almost certain to attend council or state
legislative meetings on ocean issues. These personal actions are apparently not only the most appealing,
they are also considered by those polled to be the most effective. Nearly three-quarters (70%) stated that
recycling used motor oil would be a very effective action toward ocean protection; 63% said the same of
picking up litter on the beach. In general, the poll suggests that Ameri- cans feel they have a responsibility

There was strong agreement (84%) with the

statement "'we have a re- sponsibility to protect the ocean for future
generations," and 82% strongly agreed that the "destruction of the
ocean is a threat to the health of future generations."
to pro- tect the ocean.

Especially women voters

Lilley 10 (Summer, Jonathan Charles, PhD in Marine Biology, NAVIGATING

A SEA OF VALUES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE OCEAN

AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
With regard to environmental beliefs and values, geographic
location and sex prove influential. There exist a number of differences between people
living in the coastal zone and those who live away from the coast, with the more pronounced differences
among those who live within coastal zip codes. These people are more cognizant of the economic
importance of the ocean and more likely to feel they have a responsibility to protect and preserve the
ocean. People living in coastal zips also hold slightly less anthropocentric attitudes when it comes to

Women are also less anthropocentric than

men and more likely to understand they have a personal impact on
the ocean. Additionally, women feel that anti-pollution laws should be
enforced more strongly.
humans relationship to the environment.

Link Ocean Policy General

Oceans cause controversy ideological divide and kneejerk hostility only new evidence assumes the gridlocked
Congress
Tom Allen is the president and CEO of the Association of American
Publishers and a board member of the Ocean Conservancy. He represented
Maines 1st District in Congress for six terms. , 12-4- 2013 Challenges of a
Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time? | Commentary
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_
act_in_time_commentary-229390-1.html?pg=1 DA: 6/6/14
In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship, a surprising
opportunity has emerged to strengthen our nations ocean and coastal communities,
businesses and environment. Congress should seize the moment and establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts and Great Lakes.
Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing

This legislative conflict is part of

our countrys broader ideological struggle, but with this difference:
On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental group can exercise
coordinated and effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an
provisions with competing visions for the future of ocean and coastal management in America.

amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a National Endowment for the Oceans that passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment
would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical

reflects the belief that the federal

government has an important role to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent
businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives
includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches
to ocean resource management. In an era when we need government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean
planning are just common sense. They allow the local, state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional
to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It

boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for

This legislative head-to-head dispute reflects the broader

ideological struggle that haunts the halls of Congress today. Its
between those who believe that the government can be a vehicle to
serve the common good and those who believe that nearly all
government action restricts personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its
coastal communities.

immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage dump. But now the ocean and our
coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten
beaches and clam diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally
exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-

the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility

toward any new government initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didnt
generate such partisan conflict until recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan House Oceans
Caucus, I can say that working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more commonplace.
term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over

For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by
President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was
overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six Democrats and 13 Republicans.
Only one Democratic governor expressed any opposition.

Causes political fighting no clear jurisdiction

Christos Makridis, Research Fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy
Policy and Finance at Stanford University and a Ph.D. student at Stanford
University's Department of Management Science and Engineering, A Tale of
Two Countries: Markets and Transboundary Water Governance between the
United States and Mexico, 2-4-2013,
https://people.stanford.edu/cmakridi/sites/default/files/Makridis%20%20Markets%20and%20Transboundary%20Water.pdf DA: 6/5/14

Waters unique attributes as a quasi

public and private good distinguish it from other economic goods
and services.1 While national and international competition over water resources is not new, many of the
advances in industrial organization and applied microeconomics
have not yet been integrated into the literature on transboundary
governance and sustainability. In particular, there is sparse literature that applies market design elements of
Countries have long fought over access to water resources.

incentive compatibility among heterogeneous actors in the context of transboundary water governance. Recent events have accentuated the
importance of developing mutually beneficial policy rules for resolving water resources. First, environmental externalities associated with
water use are increasing. For example, climate change is expected to make water resources much more scarce, relative to their current

the recent 2010 Gulf Oil spill resulted in

significant economic and environmental damages both for many
years to come (i.e. temporally) and throughout the entire Gulf region (i.e. spatially) (National Commission, 2011).
scarcity (Backus et al, 2010). Likewise,

Second, conflict over water resources seems to be increasing. For example, recent disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have captivated the
international communitys attention with the prospects of con- flict. Sparked by competition over the SCS water resource, in part because of its
large hydrocarbon reserves, China has contested the property rights of neighboring countries, including: Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines,

governance of water resources is

inherently political and contentious underscores the importance of designing effective markets and
Vietnam, and Taiwan (Makridis, 2013). That transboundary

institutions capable of promoting efficient and equitable outcomes for involved parties.

Link---Generic
Plan causes partisan battles and drains PC for other
priorities
Stauffer, 12 (Pete, the Ocean Program Manager at the Surfrider

Foundation, Why I Support the National Ocean Policy (And You Should Too),
May 7, http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/why-i-support-the-nationalocean-policy-and-so-should-you,)
the future of the National Ocean Policy is in
jeopardy, plagued by a lack of support and funding from congress. Just
Yet, despite these promising developments,

last month, yet another measure was introduced in the House to restrict funding and implementation of

despite the fact that the policy is being advanced with

existing agency resources! Furthermore, several Republican leaders including Rep. Doc
the policy this

Hastings (WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, have seized on the NOP as a partisan
issue, labeling marine spatial planning as burdensome and accusing the administration of regulatory
overreach (I wont elaborate on Hastings proposals to vastly expand offshore drilling or the donations he
receives from oil & gas companies). But the

partisanship and political attacks in Washington

D.C. are obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in
states and regions across the country despite the lack of support from the federal government. From the
Pacific Northwest to New England, the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Islands, regions are making real

advances in ocean mapping, habitat restoration, renewable energy

siting, and other key areas. In my home state of Oregon, a process to create a marine
spatial plan for wave energy development has brought together community leaders, fishermen, surfers,
environmentalists, and developers as part of an effective public collaboration. The expected outcome: a
plan that will both protect the environment and existing ocean uses, while also advancing renewable

in Washington D.C.,
controversy is the rule of the day and political parties
instinctively oppose each others proposals. Adding to the problem, many
supporters in congress have been passive, spending their political
capital on other priorities and cautioning ocean advocates against making the NOP a target
in annual budget discussions. The result is that our National Ocean Policy is neglected and
under-supported by congress, while our oceans and those that depend upon them bear
energy opportunities. Of course, such success stories do not resonate well
where

the consequences.

Plan requires direct Presidential involvement to overcome

widespread opposition
May 13 (Peter J, Center for American Politics and Public Policy, Department
of Political Science, University of Washington, Political Limits to the
Processing of Policy Problems, Politics and Governance, 2013, v 1 issue 2,
Pages 104116)
we label anemic
policymaking because of the lack of impetus for addressing them and a
limited basis for problem resolution. Sustained attention to such issues is typically
limited to narrow policy communities around vague problem conceptualizations.
These are the most difficult problems to address from a political
perspective. The difficulties arise from several sources. One is the disconnection between players
addressing aspects of the problem. Absent macro-political intervention by
presidents or congressional leaders, usually in the wake of a major crisis, there is little
basis for agreement about the problem or its resolution. Even in the
aftermath of major crises, reform efforts can be piecemeal and
shortlived. Unlike allied policymaking, there is little basis for forming an
The remaining two cases in the lower left quadrant comprise what

effective coalition in support of reform. Like bureaucratic policymaking, these issues

are largely within the domain of substantive policy experts. The relative lack of partisan conflict might be
viewed as positive. Yet the lack of broader-based publics undermines the impetus for action. These
dynamics are evident from considering aspects of the three cases in this quadrant. Though two major
commissions have recently highlighted the seriousness of the decline of ocean health the Pew Oceans
Commission [67] and the U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy [68]progress in addressing this problem has
been halting and piecemeal. The Pew Oceans Commission report ([67], p. viii) suc- cinctly states: "plagued
with systemic problems, U.S. ocean governance is in disarray". The disarray reflects the institutional
layering of responsibilities ranging from environmental conditions, to fisheries management, to
international trade that the Pew report notes constitute more than 140 laws involving at least six cabinetlevel departments and dozens of agencies. But why has such reform been stymied, given the seeming
consensus about the need for it? The answer, we argue, is the lack of engagement among a broaderbased
set of publics. In this regard, Sarah Chasis ([69], p. A20) of the Natural Resources Defense Council notes

is stymied by "too few ocean champions on the Hill, the lack

of a strong administration leadership, tight budget times, and a lack of
public awareness". At the same time there has been little partisan or interest group conflict over
that progress

the need to address these problems. The lack of partisanship is evinced by Bush administration

Ocean Policy and by the Obama administration's formation

issues have
reached the presidential agenda, they are notably absent from the congressional
agenda. As suggested by the actions of the Obama administration, future change for ocean policy may
appointments to the U.S. Commission on

of the National Ocean Council for coordinating governmental programs. Though these

look more like bureaucratic policymaking than reform policymaking.

Plan drains PC no support from lobbies or Congress

Sterne 6 (Jack, and David Wilmot, Oceans Policy: It's a Matter of

Leadership, March 1, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/oceanspolicy-its-matter-leadership?page=2)

the real question raised
is the leadership? Most environmental
groups have been focused largely on terrestrial issues, Congress is
missing in action, and the publics attention is elsewhere (usually on the
And while the pace of decline has unquestionably accelerated recently,
by this series of articles is: Where

latest episode of Survivor or Lost, which is where we might all end up if we dont reverse current
trends). What does it say that, though we literally carry the oceans within ourselves, and though we are
so drawn to it that over half the U.S. population lives in a coastal county, our oceans languish in neglect,
while the biggest environmental fight of our time is over oil drilling in a patch of Arctic wilderness that
most people will never visit, and that has a fraction of the ecological significance of our oceans? In a 2003
report for the Packard, Oak and Munson Foundations, we looked in detail at the effectiveness of the ocean
conservation movement. We found a growing force of highly professional activists pressing for essential

While the oceans

have bipartisan support in Congress, there are very few champions
willing to expend political capital to bring about the needed reforms.
The problem is not a dearth of good facts or the lack of a compelling scientific case. (If you think
reforms but not yet able to muster the political power to achieve victory.

that an overwhelming scientific consensus is enough to win, look at Congress inaction on global warming.)

has been the conspicuous absence of ocean conservationists

from the political arena, and the lack of an effective grassroots base
that can be mobilized to pressure politicians for change. The result:
extremely limited leverage to reward those politicians who will work
to protect the oceans or to hold accountable those who would destroy it.
Rather, it

Link---Generic---Partisanship
GOP will wage partisan attacks against the plan no link
turns
Conathan 12 (Michael, Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for

American Progress, Fish on Fridays: Sensible Ocean Policy Falling Victim to

Political Games, April 13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fishon-fridays-sensible-ocean-policy-falling-victim-to-political-games/)
Even in the bitterest partisan times, ocean issues tend to exist outside the traditional political boxing ring.
They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party affiliation. Members who
represent coastal states and districts usually recognize the value of sustaining and investing in our

in recent
months the escalation of rancor and polarization encompassed even the
normally temperate issue of ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House
Committee on Natural Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack
Obamas National Ocean Policy public enemy number one. Ever since its
roll-out, the policyimplemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set
of guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes has been
taking fire from opponents who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing
valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them more than their inland counterparts. But

regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning
in this country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction
espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework
for the great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning

boiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than
bald political rhetoric. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help

safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our
ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both
hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific
Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are
proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly
affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the
National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists,
industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example
of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the
interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2
Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations Committeethe holders of the
congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the
National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the regional fishery
management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over
the policy since its inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the development
of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken
steps to alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts.

Hastings has been joined in his effort to

defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and inland industry groups ,
Despite these improvements, Rep.

including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential
benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while
conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next
sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas
ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals.

Ocean Ex/Dev Unpopular

Exploration Spends Political Capital

Ocean exploration requires political capital and
funding lack of oceans on agenda in past years
prove political backlash
Pegg, Environment News Service, 3

[J.R., 11/4/03, Environment News Service, U.S. Urged to Chart New Course
for Ocean Research, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2003/2003-1104-10.asp, accessed 6/30/14, GNL]
The bottom of the ocean remains the Earth's least explored frontier and will remain so unless the United
States provides international leadership, scientists said today. How to provide that leadership is the focus
of a new report from the National Research Council, which recommends the U.S. government embark on a

The report says that the program

would reap a slew of benefits by increasing the pace of discovery of
new species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor features,
pharmaceutical products, and artifacts, as well as improve
understanding of the role oceans play in climate change. "Improved
new multi disciplinary program of ocean exploration.

knowledge of our oceans represents more than an academic interest," said Dr. John Orcutt, deputy director
of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and chair of the committee that prepared the report.

Congress, interested in the possibility of an international ocean

exploration program, asked the National Research Council - an arm
of the National Academy of Sciences - to examine the feasibility of
such an effort. The committee determined that the barriers to an
international effort remain too high and recommended that the
Congress would be wise to first launch a U.S. program. "The United States
should lead by example," Orcutt said. Rise The remote reaches and depths of the ocean need exploring,
the committee says. (Photo courtesy the Ocean Drilling Program) Such a program should include the
participation of foreign nations and could serve as a model for others, according to the report. "Informal
and bilateral agreements that are project specific would enjoy greatest chance of international

Implementing the committee's proposal would cost

some $270 million in the first year, and about $100 million in annual
appropriations thereafter. These funds include a dedicated flagship and a fleet of manned
collaboration," Orcutt said.

submersibles capable of diving to at least 6,500 meters and unmanned submersibles designed to reach
depths of 7,000 meters or more. The panel also recommended that the program include additional
autonomous underwater vehicles that are programmed to travel a specific route, collecting information
along the way with sensors and cameras. "Currently available submersibles - whether manned, remotely
operated, or autonomous - cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley
Pomponi, vice president and director of research at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Orcutt told
reporters that the committee determined that much of the oceanographic work currently conducted
"reinvestigates previously visited locations." "We tend to go to places where we have been before," he
said. "If we are to understand the global oceans, it is necessary to go beyond that and go into this
exploration mode." The oceans cover 70 percent of the planet but vast portions have not been
"systematically examined for geological or biological characteristics," he said, noting in particular a lack of
exploration of the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. A multidisciplinary ocean exploration program
could buck that trend, the panel says, and could overcome the discipline based character of the U.S.
funding bureaucracy. Federal grants tend to be allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical scientists,
rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields. The report recommends that
the program focus on a range of key issues, including biodiversity, the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere,
deep sea archaeology and the influence of deep ocean water on climate change. The committee suggests
that a nonfederal contractor should operate the program, citing the benefits of creativity, cost savings and
performance incentives that can arise from competitive bidding. But who should oversee the program is a

The panel says the National Oceanographic Partnership

Program, an existing collaboration of 14 agencies, would be the
most appropriate part of the U.S. government to house the program,
yet it notes that Congress would need to revise the partnership
tricky question.

program's charter so it can receive direct and substantial

appropriations of federal funds. If this funding issue is not resolved, the committee said,
the ocean exploration program could be sponsored by the National Science Foundation or the National

There is no question that finding the

funding - and political capital - to launch the kind of program
outlined by the committee will not be easy. But Representative Jim Greenwood, a
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Reef

Pennsylvania Republican, believes that pressure is growing for Congress to act. "We think it is time to do
something big and bold," said Greenwood. The National Research Council report - along with the Pew
Oceans Commission report released last June and the pending release of the U.S. Oceans Commission

"We are trying to put

the oceans on the political agenda," added Representative Sam Farr,
a California Democrat. The report noted that humans have spent more time on the surface of
report - is creating a "perfect storm of knowledge," Greenwood said.

the moon than exploring the deepest reaches of the ocean - a point Farr picked up on. "We may have to

Supporters in
Congress for the program hope that recent discoveries of previously
unknown species and deep sea biological and chemical processes
have heightened interest in ocean exploration. Explaining how these
discoveries could benefit mankind is key, the panel said, and education
and public outreach need to be an integral part of the ocean
exploration program. "This [program] could catch the imagination of the American people," said
find some money in the NASA budget to help the oceans budget," Farr said.

Greenwood, who plans to lobby the White House to embrace the program.

Exploration Funding Controversial

Ocean exploration unpopular GOP has voted against
every effort for exploration so far
Madsen, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
chair, 12
(Stephanie, vice president of the Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, Summer 2012, Pacific Fisheries Review, National Ocean
Policy: A New Bureaucracy That Could Compromise Regional Fisheries
Management,
http://www.pacificfisheriesreview.com/pfr_june12_story6.php, accessed
6/27/14, GNL)
The Administrations draft NOP Implementation Plan proposes 53
federal governmental actions and nearly 300 milestones, with 158 of
those milestones to be completed in 2012 or 2013. Congress is
cutting funding for most federal agencies and has not provided new
funding for NOP implementation, so where is the money coming from to fund these new
activities? Commercial fishing interests are concerned that money has been, and will be, diverted from
under-funded core NOAA Fisheries science and management programs to pay for a new bureaucracy and
for new activities not authorized by Congress. Proponents are well aware of the tenuous authority of the
Administration to implement the NOP, yet they move ahead without apparent concern. These same
proponents, however, insisted previously that Congressional action to create a national ocean policy was
necessary.

NOP proponents supported bills introduced in the previous

four Congresses that proposed a national ocean policy, as well as
many of the councils and committees subsequently established
through Executive Order. None of the bills introduced in successive
Congresses passed. In fact, none passed either body of Congress.
Now, without Congressional authorization or dedicated appropriations, the Administration states that
funding to implement the NOP, including ocean zoning activities, will come from repurposing existing
resources. The commercial fishing industry does not support repurposing core NOAA Fisheries science
and management programs to establish a new oceans bureaucracy that at the very least creates
duplicative fisheries management authority.

It is a hollow argument advanced to

date by the Administration that repurposing funds creates
efficiencies when, at least in the case of fisheries management, it
creates confusing, overlapping jurisdictional lines and duplicates
existing resource management processes. In May, the House of
Representatives voted to prohibit certain federal agencies, including
NOAA, from spending taxpayer dollars on the NOP , in large part,
because Congress has not authorized many of the activities
contained in the NOP implementation plan. Hopefully, the Senate will act, as well.
The Administration could show good faith by not moving forward with establishing ocean zoning bodies
until either Congress acts to define their scope of authority or the Administration appropriately limits their
mandate. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska fishing industry are proud of our progressive and innovative
approach to properly managing ocean resources. And we are proud of our collaborative working

We do not welcome that

relationship being put at risk by implementation of an NOP that is
being rushed forward without regard for constituents concerns.
relationship with state and federal fishery managers.

Funding unpopular cuts in the prove

Drs. McClain, Deep Sea News Editor & Dove, Georgia
Aquarium Research Center Research and Conservation
Director, 12
[Craig, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center Assistant Director of Science,
& Alistair, Al Dove is an Australian marine biologist currently serving as
Director of Research and Conservation at the Georgia Aquarium Research
Center in Atlanta, 10-16-12, Deep Sea News, We Need an Ocean NASA Now
Pt.1, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/,
accessed 6-24-14, CK]
Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the oceans . The most
remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever
due to engineering and technological advances . What limits our
exploration of the oceans is not imagination or technology but
funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize
ocean exploration and science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the
total number of dollars spent here is large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic
product invested into research.

The outlook for ocean science is even bleaker.

In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration, especially
for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains
stagnant, despite rising costs of equipment and personnel. The Joint
Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of leading
ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and
congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science in
the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the
National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported
by the Senate. In NOAAs own words, NOAA determined that NURP
was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research
activities. Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and
equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the
Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater
habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a
3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10
of NOAAs budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of
the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is that
other avenues of Federal funding for such activities might be
pursued. However, other avenues are fading as well. Some
funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAAs Ocean
Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean Exploration, the
division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all
programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S.
Naval funding for basic research has also diminished.

1NC- Exploration
Ocean exploration unpopular- funding issues
Spross 14 (Jeff Spross, Climate Progress, Republican Bill Cuts Funding For
Climate, Social, Economic Research By $160 Million,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426660/first-act-gop-sciencecuts/, April 15, 2014)
The House Republicans latest bill to reauthorize science research
funding makes an aggressive effort to pick and choose what science
to fund, the Boston Globe reports. The GOPs preferred version of
the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act of
2014 (otherwise known as the FIRST Act) would move about $160
million out of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, cutting
those areas by roughly 40 percent. It would also shift money out of
the geoscience areas that cover oceanic and climate studies.
Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to 26
percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their
previous path. Its the role of Congress to make sure were using
limited federal funds for the highest priority research, Rep. Lamar
Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science, Space and
Technology Committee and the bills author, told the Globe.
Specifically, the FIRST Act is a partial reauthorization of the COMPETES Act,
which was first passed by Congress in 2007, and then again 2010, and has
now expired. The COMPETES Act originally set funding for the National
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
two offices with the Department of Energy, but the targets were always
something of a suggestion thanks to sequestration and the general
push for budget austerity over the last few years, the full funding
called for by the COMPETES Act was never authorized by Congress.
The FIRST Act would only cover funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, leaving the
Department of Energy agencies to be tackled by separate legislation.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
FIRST Act gets into the weeds of how the NSF apportions its funds
something Congress hasnt done in years. The NSF is split into different
directorates, each one covering a different area: Biological Sciences (BIO),
Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering
(ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), and
Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE). The original version of the
FIRST Act wouldve modestly cut GEO, which includes funding for ocean and
atmospheric sciences. It wouldve cut SBE funding much more deeply. FIRSTNSF In mid-March, Democrats pushed through an amendment to scale back
the SBE cut to half of whats pictured above. The FIRST Act would also
require the NSF to publicly justify how each grant it awards would
serve the national interest. Just what that would mean has changed
as the bill has been revised. And anticipating ahead of time whether
any particular research project will serve the national interest ,
however defined, is an inherently difficult business. Finally, the
FIRST Acts overall level of spending is so low it would not keep up

with inflation, making it a cut in real and not just nominal terms. The
bill will be up for a vote in Smiths committee soon. And even if its passed
by the committee and the full Republican-controlled House, the
FIRST Act would still have to survive the Democrat-controlled
Senate. Nevertheless, it does offer a glimpse in Republicans
thinking when it comes to where Americas scientific research should
be going. For a committee that is supposed to be advancing science, we
seem to be doing an awfully good job of advancing selective science, said
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA), whos also on the committee. He called
the GOP bill an opportunistic approach to defunding or attacking
certain areas of science that you either dont agree with or that you
dont want to see what the results might actually be.

Unhighlighted
Congress reducing budget for exploration
Mervis 13 a reporter on science policy
(Jeff, 3/25/13, Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill,
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill)//spark
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the
rest of the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20
March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy lifting was
completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.

continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous

aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the
overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a
The so-called

detailed spending road map for the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have

Dickering over the

2013 budget caused
plenty of sturm and drang over the past year. But the final outcome has agency
advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a
very tough budget situationnot perfect, but it could have been
much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at
received very little guidance beyond an overall amount they can spend.
National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)

the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to
Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more
than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved earlier this year

some of NOAA's research

accounts will still feel pain from the automatic cuts known as the
sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave
NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013 spending bill, matching the
president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also
that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that

requires a cut of nearly 2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits,
reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a 5% cutfurther reduces the total to about

The Sandy relief bill

added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range
of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and "hurricane
hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on
put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester, and
gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs.
Other programs, however, will still feel pain . The largest, including
its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, are likely to end up with flat or slightly
reduced budgets. And at least one research-related program will cease to exist. Congress
endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea Research
Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles ,
and to fold it into the agency's broader ocean exploration program .
$4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion.
finalized in February, however,

But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed,

The agency will also have to tell

Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and
automated undersea craft.
should be allowed to compete for continuing funding.

Ocean exploration costs PC no Congressional

constituency and funding concerns stall debates
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for
American Progress 6-20-2013 Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean

Spending http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/spaceexploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/ DA: 6/11/14

Star Trek would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space, we still have plenty of

frontiers to explore here on our home planet

discovery.

. And they

re losing the race of

Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible

that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL),
who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and

NASAs
total funding for
NOAA
Exploration

Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013

exploration budget was

roughly

$3.8 billion

. That same year,

annual

everything

doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of
Research received

just $23. million

7

and

. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8

million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. The single-seat submersible,
Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)The single-seat

Yet
in a way ocean exploration never

submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)

space travel excites Americans

has

imaginations

. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in

the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are even parodies:
Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Sponge Bob
Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control
room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of
spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of
ocean nerds such as myself.

Part of this

incongruity

comes from access

. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the

sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children.

Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep and
even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a
result facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak
,

, the

. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent

of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans
are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go

In a time of shrinking budgets and

increased scrutiny on the return for our investments
ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus.

, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we

are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of
course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have
become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the
technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a
much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside
the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next
level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least
one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the

Begich
asked where we would be if we had spent
money exploring
the oceans
Given the current financial climate in
Congress, we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.
governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark
hypothetically

(D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,

today

half as much

as we have spent exploring space.

But

there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century
Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean Exploration program. Since the original
Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or

if the key to exploring the oceans hinges on

Congress increasing spending
we are more likely to mine
asteroids after all.
two off the gross from Avatar 2 to help fill the gap. Come to think of it,
Hollywood giving up profits or

either

, maybe

Ocean exploration funding is a heavy lift causes

Congressional controversy
Jeff Mervis reports on science policy in the United States and around the
world. He's covered science policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at
Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill DA: 6/11/14

U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September.

The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an

Dickering over the National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)

2013 budget caused plenty of sturm and drang over the past year. But the final
overall amount they can spend.

outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,

Other programs, however, will still feel pain.

The largest, including its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Marine Fisheries Service,
are likely to end up with flat or slightly reduced budgets. And at least one research-related
program will cease to exist. Congress endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea
and gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs.

Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.

Ocean exploration funding controversial past debates

prove
Linda Larson has over 25 years of environmental law and land use experience. Over the course of
her career, she has managed numerous complex litigation matters. She has successfully resolved disputes
ranging from site remediation to endangered species, and has particular experience with marine resources
and sediments issues. Linda served as staff counsel to Senator Warren Magnuson on the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee and as an attorney with the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
She practiced for many years with Heller Ehrman, and chaired its Northwest environmental practice group .

and Jessica Ferrell focuses on environmental and natural resource litigation. She represents public
and private clients in cases arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NEPA, CERCLA, MTCA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal, state,

4-3-2009 Bounty for Land and Sea: Congress Passes

Omnibus Public Lands Act http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20090403omnibus-public-lands-act DA: 6/11/14
and local environmental laws.

after lengthy and acrimonious debate in Congress

Obama
signed
increases federal funding for research into ocean science
On March 30, 2009,

often

, President

into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the "Act"). The Act sets aside two million acres of wilderness more than the combined acreage designated by the past three

Congresses.[1] It also substantially

including an ambitious ocean and coastal mapping program and interdisciplinary research into the causes and management of ocean acidification.The Act affects a broad array of interests, including oil and gas
developers in Wyoming, Alaska and other states; water purveyors nationwide (particularly in California); livestock producers, wildlife managers in the Rocky Mountain region, and state and regional regulators
charged with protecting coastal and estuarine areas and watersheds. Wilderness Protection, New National Parks and Monuments The Act expands wilderness areas located in nine states California, Oregon, Idaho,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will provide new or additional federal protection to, among other areas, the Sierra Nevada, White, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in
California; Mt. Hood, high desert wilderness, and the Wild and Scenic John Day River in Oregon; canyon country in northern New Mexico; the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; and the Rocky Mountain
National Park and Indian Peaks Wilderness in Colorado. The Act will create some new areas and expand existing national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It also codifies the National Landscape Conservation
System, which protects national icons and monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management.[2] Climate Change and Water: Bureau of Reclamation Authorizations and Water Settlements In the Act,
Congress found that: global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of the water resources of the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and
geographical distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agricultural, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic supply, and environmental needs.[3] Recognizing that
States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the United States, the Senate still found that the Federal Government should support the States, as well as regional, local,
and tribal governments, by carrying out, for example, national research activities and actions to increase the efficient use of water throughout the United States.[4] Toward this end, Title IX of the Act authorizes
funding for local and regional water projects to improve water use efficiencies and update aging infrastructure. It provides for research on the effects of climate change on water, and authorizes projects to provide
sustainable water supplies to rural communities. More specifically, Title IX authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other agencies, to establish a climate change adaptation program to address water
shortages. It provides for the creation of a panel consisting of federal, state and local officials to address the effects of climate change on water resources and flood management. The Act would also require
feasibility studies addressing water supplies in Idaho, Arizona and California, and explore water conservation and water supply enhancement projects in Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Colorado. Finally, Title IX
attempts to address aging dams and associated infrastructure by, among other things, authorizing appropriations to carry out identified maintenance.[5] In Title X, containing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act provision, the Act authorizes implementation of the settlement reached in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Orange Cove Irrigation District,[6] which created the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (the SJRRP). The SJRRP resulted from 18 years of federal litigation addressing competing water needs from and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is the largest estuary on the West
Coast, and supplies water to over 20 million people.[7] The case involved 14 conservation and fishing groups, 22 water contractors, and three federal agencies. It addressed various water disputes, including issues
over water flows provided to endangered fish. The parties crafted the settlement to achieve two broad goals: (1) a restoration goal, to restore and maintain fish populations in certain areas of the San Joaquin river;
and (2) a water management goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to certain long-term water contractors that may result from flows provided for fish in the settlement.[8] The parties executed a separate
Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California to assist with implementing and funding the settlement. Still, the parties require federal funding. The Act provides for nearly $1 billion in federal funds and
requires an aggregate commitment of at least $200 million from the State of California.[9] Oceans: Coastal Protection Grants, New Science Initiatives Led by NOAA Title XII is comprised of many

separate acts creati major new programs aimed at increasing

scientific knowledge related to ocean,
ocean exploration
research programs
aimed at
ng

coastal and Great Lakes resources and preserving significant coastal and estuarine habitat: The

NOAA Undersea Research Program Act and associated authority for

establish new

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authorize appropriations of over $500 million for the next seven years to implement those programs. Research is to be

for the National

increasing scientific knowledge essential for the informed

management, use, and preservation of oceanic, marine, and coastal
areas
and the Great Lakes and is to be conducted by NOAA in coordination with other federal agencies, educational entities, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and a network of

regional research centers. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act calls for the creation of an innovative nation mapping plan for the nations coasts, oceans and Great Lakes to be coordinated at the federal
level by NOAA.[11] NOAA may establish up to three ocean and coastal mapping centers, co-located at an institution of higher education that will serve as hydrographic centers of excellence.

Ocean exploration/development costs political capital Obama

will fight to protect marine sanctuaries
Iacurci, Nature World News Reporter, 2014,
(Jenna, "Obama to Protect Pacific Ocean from Fishing and Energy Exploration," Nature
World News, 6-17, PAS) www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7615/20140617/obamato-protect-pacific-ocean-from-fishing-and-energy-exploration.htm 6-28-14
President Barack Obama will announce Tuesday plans to create what could be the
world's largest marine sanctuary, an initiative that will protect large swaths of the
Pacific Ocean from overfishing, energy exploration and other human activities,
according to White House officials. Slated to go into effect later this year after a
comment period, the proposal could double the area of global ocean that is fully
protected. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D.
Podesta led the effort, aimed to safeguard more ocean territory. "No one should
mistake that the protection of our oceans is a vital international security issue," Kerry
said at an international summit on Monday. "Most people under-estimate the
enormous damage we as people are inflicting on our oceans every single day." Under
the proposal, The Washington Post first reported, the president will expand the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument from almost 87,000 square miles
(225,000 sq km) to nearly 782,000 square miles (2.03 million sq km) - an area that
includes seven territories and atolls controlled by the United States. Former President
George W. Bush first established the monument during his second term. The United
States is the leading nation in terms of ocean preserves - it controls more than 13
percent of the ocean area overseen by nations. And with this expansion, it would also
protect nearly two dozen species of marine mammals, five types of threatened sea
turtles, and a variety of sharks and other predatory fish species. Environmental
groups no doubt applaud the move, but others, mainly political opponents, who
question the scope of Obama's executive powers are likely to voice harsh criticisms the president has as used his executive authority 11 times to protect areas on land
without seeking congressional approval. "It's another example of this imperial
presidency," House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash.,
told the Post. "If there are marine sanctuaries that should be put in place, that should
go through Congress." Despite scrutiny, Obama is confident in his efforts. "We've
already shown that when we work together, we can protect our oceans for future
generations. So let's redouble our efforts," he said in a statement, Reuters reported.
And political will such as this, officials say, is an ingredient that is lacking when it
comes to ocean preservation. Kerry concluded his speech at the summit by saying,
"Ask yourself: If this group can't create a serious plan to protect the ocean for future
generations, then who can and who will?" This proposal coincides with the
announcement that wildlife in a vast portion of the Pacific Ocean, controlled by the
island nation of Kiribati, will also be protected with a commercial fishing ban.

Ocean exploration/development costs political capital Obama

is anti-development
Barron-Lopez, The Hill Energy and Environment Reporter, 2014,
(Laura, "Obama to declare more of the Pacific off-limits," The Hill, 6-17, PAS)
thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/209609-obama-pledges-action-to-protectocean 6-28-14

Obama on Monday announced he plans to close off a large swath of the Pacific Ocean
from fishing and energy exploration. The executive action is the biggest move yet by
Obama to protect the oceans, and drew criticism from Republicans who say Obama is
overreaching with his moves to create new nature preserves and national monuments. The president
President

will declare more of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific Ocean off-limits, according to a White
House fact sheet. Obamas predecessor, President George W. Bush, expanded the marine sanctuary to 87,000 square miles. The sanctuary is
home to tropical coral reefs, and marine ecosystems that are the most vulnerable to climate change and ocean acidification, according to the

Obama

will extend protections some 200 nautical miles offshore

White House. Under his plan,

also
of seven U.S.-controlled Pacific islands and atolls that are already classified as national monuments. The expansion of the Pacific Remote
Islands is expected to protect nearly two dozen types of marine mammals, along with threatened species of sea turtles. The White House
said it will seek input from fishers, scientists, conservation experts and lawmakers before making final decisions on the geographic scope of
the marine protections. Obama is also calling on world leaders to join him in protecting the world's ocean ecosystems. During video
remarks at the State Department's Our Ocean conference, Obama said climate change, overfishing and pollution have threatened and
degraded the food and economic growth opportunities of the ocean. "We cannot afford to let that happen," Obama said. "Thats why the
United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans. Lets make sure that years from now we can look our children in the eye and tell them
that, yes, we did our part, we took action, and we led the way toward a safer, more stable world. The executive order is expected to expand
the amount of protected sea by roughly nine times the area designated by Obama's predecessor, according to The Washington Post. Obama
didn't dive into those details during his announcement Tuesday. The administration's accelerated timeline to act on land and water
protections has been steered by adviser John Podesta, who has brought a renewed emphasis on executive action to the White House.
Secretary of State John Kerry said during Tuesday's even to expect similar announcements and actions from Obama in the future. Green
groups cheered the new protections and hailed an executive order issued by Obama on Tuesday that established a national panel for
combatting illegal fishing. Under the order, Obama is forming a presidential task force to combat seafood fraud and illegal, unreported, and
unregulated fishing. Kerry will lead the panel along with Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. The World Wildlife Fund called the
administration's efforts a "turning point for oceans." "By expanding marine protected areas and combatting black market fishing, the
administration is using the power of the presidency to secure the long-term health of our oceans and the livelihoods they support," said

the new efforts, specifically the planned expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands marine
drew fire from Republicans such as Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.). "For years the Obama
administration has threatened to impose ocean zoning to shut down our oceans, and today
the president is making good on that threat," Hastings said in a statement. "This is yet another
example of how an imperial president is intent on taking unilateral action, behind
closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape ."
Michele Kuruc of the Wildlife Fund. But
sanctuary,

Oceans focus recalls images of Obama as an ineffective

president
Bump 12 (30 Aug, Philip, former writer for the Gristmill, now the Atlantic

Wire, Gristmill: Romney treats climate as a punchline

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:Ikqf7qkOvo0J:grist.org/news/romney-uses-the-bully-pulpit-to-mockclimate-change/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
President

Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans

and to

heal the planet. MY promise is to help you and your family. This was one of the key
points Mitt Romney made in the speech he gave Thursday night to officially accept the presidential
nomination of the Republican Party. This was the speech immediately before the balloon drop, his primary

The quote was one of a

few key passages Romney released to the press beforehand one
of the points the campaign thought were most important to get into
newspaper articles before papers went to print. The quote Romney references
sales pitch to undecided voters who hadnt yet made up their minds.

here is from a speech Obama gave on June 3, 2008, the night he wrapped up the nomination for the
Democratic Party. In context, it reads like this. The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this
challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless
faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and
believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell
our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the
jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this
was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best
hope on Earth. This was the moment this was the time when we came together to remake this great

Obamas point, of
was that hed been endorsed to fight for what the Democratic
Party believes in: a strong safety net, employment, addressing climate change, ending the war in
nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.
course,

Iraq, burnishing an image of the United States that had been gutted by the man then holding the office. In
the past four years, he clearly hasnt accomplished all of that; on many points, hes fallen much shorter

than Democrats had hoped. But this was a statement of intent, an exhortation to ideals. As soon as he

the section about the ocean became a symbol for an

opposition intent to portray Obama as an effete other . The next day, the clip
gave the speech,

was posted on YouTube, with the title Obama Promises The World. When you search for that phrase on
Google during the latter part of 2008, the first site that returns a result is ObamaMessiah.blogspot.com.
Obamas claim that we might address the rise of the oceans was seen as a man claiming dominion over
the universe, not as a sensible priority for a president in the year 2008. That year, Mitt Romney was also
running for president, though his campaign had ended by the time Obama gave that speech. During that
campaign in 2008, Romney admitted that climate change was occurring, and that humans were

Mitt Romney derides the scientific fact

of climate change as he finds better political success in the
Republican primary. And he has embraced the support of those who
wrung from Obamas hopeful, excited words such bizarre
insinuations. What Romney argues is a classic false choice: the idea that we must either choose to
contributing to it. But Romney lost. So now,

save the environment or put people to work. Its the sort of argument that lets polluters squat in poor
communities, insisting that they be allowed to do as they wish or theyll take their jobs elsewhere. Its a
choice that need not be made, as demonstrated by green jobs and the burgeoning industries built around

Romney was arguing.

that Obama is a weirdo who cares more about dolphins
than Americans. That Romney will be there for the kids after school
with a Wonder bread sandwich while Obama is nursing a spotted owl
back to health with his halo.
renewables and efficiency and sustainability. But thats not actually what
He was arguing

Ocean exploration costs PC no Congressional

constituency and funding concerns stall debates
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for
American Progress 6-20-2013 Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean

Spending http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/spaceexploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/ DA: 6/11/14

Star Trek would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space, we still have plenty of

frontiers to explore here on our home planet

discovery.

. And they

re losing the race of

Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible

that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL),
who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and

NASAs
total funding for
NOAA
Exploration

Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013

exploration budget was

roughly

$3.8 billion

. That same year,

annual

everything

doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of
Research received

just $23. million

7

and

. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8

million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. The single-seat submersible,
Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)The single-seat

Yet
in a way ocean exploration never

submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)

space travel excites Americans

has

imaginations

. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in

the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are even parodies:
Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Sponge Bob
Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control
room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of
spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of
ocean nerds such as myself.

Part of this

incongruity

comes from access

. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the

sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children.

Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep and
even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a
result facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak
,

, the

. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent

of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans
are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go

In a time of shrinking budgets and

increased scrutiny on the return for our investments
ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus.

, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we

are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of
course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have
become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the
technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a
much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside
the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next
level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least
one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the

Begich
asked where we would be if we had spent
money exploring
the oceans
Given the current financial climate in
Congress, we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.
governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark
hypothetically

(D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,

today

half as much

as we have spent exploring space.

But

there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century
Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean Exploration program. Since the original
Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or

if the key to exploring the oceans hinges on

Congress increasing spending
we are more likely to mine
asteroids after all.
two off the gross from Avatar 2 to help fill the gap. Come to think of it,
Hollywood giving up profits or

either

, maybe

Ocean exploration funding is a heavy lift causes

Congressional controversy
Jeff Mervis reports on science policy in the United States and around the

world. He's covered science policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at
Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill DA: 6/11/14
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an

Dickering over the National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)

budget caused plenty of sturm and drang over the past year

overall amount they can spend.

2013
. But the final
outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,

Other programs, however, will still feel pain.

The largest, including its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Marine Fisheries Service,
are likely to end up with flat or slightly reduced budgets. And at least one research-related
program will cease to exist. Congress endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea
and gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs.

Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.

Ocean exploration funding controversial past debates

prove
Linda Larson has over 25 years of environmental law and land use experience. Over the course of
her career, she has managed numerous complex litigation matters. She has successfully resolved disputes
ranging from site remediation to endangered species, and has particular experience with marine resources
and sediments issues. Linda served as staff counsel to Senator Warren Magnuson on the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee and as an attorney with the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
She practiced for many years with Heller Ehrman, and chaired its Northwest environmental practice group .

and Jessica Ferrell focuses on environmental and natural resource litigation. She represents public
and private clients in cases arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NEPA, CERCLA, MTCA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal, state,
and local environmental laws.

4-3-2009 Bounty for Land and Sea: Congress Passes

Omnibus Public Lands Act http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20090403omnibus-public-lands-act DA: 6/11/14

after lengthy and acrimonious debate in Congress
Obama
signed
increases federal funding for research into ocean science
On March 30, 2009,

often

, President

into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the "Act"). The Act sets aside two million acres of wilderness more than the combined acreage designated by the past three

Congresses.[1] It also substantially

including an ambitious ocean and coastal mapping program and interdisciplinary research into the causes and management of ocean acidification.The Act affects a broad array of interests, including oil and gas
developers in Wyoming, Alaska and other states; water purveyors nationwide (particularly in California); livestock producers, wildlife managers in the Rocky Mountain region, and state and regional regulators
charged with protecting coastal and estuarine areas and watersheds. Wilderness Protection, New National Parks and Monuments The Act expands wilderness areas located in nine states California, Oregon, Idaho,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will provide new or additional federal protection to, among other areas, the Sierra Nevada, White, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in
California; Mt. Hood, high desert wilderness, and the Wild and Scenic John Day River in Oregon; canyon country in northern New Mexico; the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; and the Rocky Mountain
National Park and Indian Peaks Wilderness in Colorado. The Act will create some new areas and expand existing national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It also codifies the National Landscape Conservation
System, which protects national icons and monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management.[2] Climate Change and Water: Bureau of Reclamation Authorizations and Water Settlements In the Act,
Congress found that: global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of the water resources of the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and
geographical distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agricultural, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic supply, and environmental needs.[3] Recognizing that
States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the United States, the Senate still found that the Federal Government should support the States, as well as regional, local,
and tribal governments, by carrying out, for example, national research activities and actions to increase the efficient use of water throughout the United States.[4] Toward this end, Title IX of the Act authorizes
funding for local and regional water projects to improve water use efficiencies and update aging infrastructure. It provides for research on the effects of climate change on water, and authorizes projects to provide
sustainable water supplies to rural communities. More specifically, Title IX authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other agencies, to establish a climate change adaptation program to address water
shortages. It provides for the creation of a panel consisting of federal, state and local officials to address the effects of climate change on water resources and flood management. The Act would also require
feasibility studies addressing water supplies in Idaho, Arizona and California, and explore water conservation and water supply enhancement projects in Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Colorado. Finally, Title IX
attempts to address aging dams and associated infrastructure by, among other things, authorizing appropriations to carry out identified maintenance.[5] In Title X, containing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act provision, the Act authorizes implementation of the settlement reached in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Orange Cove Irrigation District,[6] which created the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (the SJRRP). The SJRRP resulted from 18 years of federal litigation addressing competing water needs from and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is the largest estuary on the West
Coast, and supplies water to over 20 million people.[7] The case involved 14 conservation and fishing groups, 22 water contractors, and three federal agencies. It addressed various water disputes, including issues
over water flows provided to endangered fish. The parties crafted the settlement to achieve two broad goals: (1) a restoration goal, to restore and maintain fish populations in certain areas of the San Joaquin river;
and (2) a water management goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to certain long-term water contractors that may result from flows provided for fish in the settlement.[8] The parties executed a separate
Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California to assist with implementing and funding the settlement. Still, the parties require federal funding. The Act provides for nearly $1 billion in federal funds and
requires an aggregate commitment of at least $200 million from the State of California.[9] Oceans: Coastal Protection Grants, New Science Initiatives Led by NOAA Title XII is comprised of many

separate acts creati major new programs aimed at increasing

scientific knowledge related to ocean,
ocean exploration
research programs
aimed at
increasing scientific knowledge essential for the informed
management, use, and preservation of oceanic, marine, and coastal
areas
ng

coastal and Great Lakes resources and preserving significant coastal and estuarine habitat: The

NOAA Undersea Research Program Act and associated authority for

establish new

for the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authorize appropriations of over $500 million for the next seven years to implement those programs. Research is to be

and the Great Lakes and is to be conducted by NOAA in coordination with other federal agencies, educational entities, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and a network of

regional research centers. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act calls for the creation of an innovative nation mapping plan for the nations coasts, oceans and Great Lakes to be coordinated at the federal
level by NOAA.[11] NOAA may establish up to three ocean and coastal mapping centers, co-located at an institution of higher education that will serve as hydrographic centers of excellence.

Environment Policy Unpopular

GOP Opposition
Environmental policies are extremely partisan little GOP
support
Dunlap, Gallup Scholar for the Environment, 8
[Riley E., Regents Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University and
Gallup Scholar for the Environment with Gallup, 5/29/8, Gallup, ClimateChange Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand Sharp divergence on
whether the effects of global warming are yet
evident,http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-viewsrepublicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]

Historically, support for environmental protection in the

United States has been relatively nonpartisan. Republicans pointed with pride to
PRINCETON, NJ --

Theodore Roosevelt's crucial role in promoting the conservation of natural resources by establishing
national parks and forests, and Democrats applauded Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to include
conservation as part of the "New Deal" via the Soil Conservation Service and related programs.

Especially notable was how Richard Nixon collaborated with a

Democratic Congress by signing several of our nation's most
important pieces of environmental legislation into law in the late
1960s and early 1970s. The situation began to change in the 1980s,
as the Reagan administration labeled environmental regulations a
burden that needed to be eased. While a temporary backlash from environmentalists
and much of the public resulted, Republicans nonetheless enjoyed a good deal of electoral success in

This theme has been

amplified in passing decades, and one consequence has been a
growing partisan divide over environmental protection (and other
government programs). The divide was most noticeable among
political elites, such as members of Congress, who tend to be more
ideologically polarized than is the general public. What had been a modest, but
arguing that "government is the problem, not the solution."

significant, difference in Republican and Democratic levels of pro-environmental voting in Congress since
1970 became a noticeable gap after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.[i] In
the past decade, it has become a chasm in both the House and Senate, as reflected in recent voting
"scorecards" issued by the League of Conservation Voters. Nonetheless, partisan differences in support for
environmental protection among the general public remained relatively modest. For example, from the
early 1970s until the mid-1990s, support for increased spending on environmental protection by selfidentified Democrats was typically only around 10 points higher than for self-identified Republicans.[ii]

The gap began to widen in the late 1990s, likely reflecting voters'
tendency to follow cues from party leaders and political pundits.
Nowhere is the partisan gap on environmental issues more apparent
than on climate change. Beginning in the 1990s, particularly in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol
calling for reduced CO2 emissions was established, conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh
began to critique both the evidence for global warming and proposals for reducing carbon emissions.

It

would appear that the vigorous conservative campaign against

climate-change advocates (especially Al Gore) has contributed to
leaders of the Republican Party adopting a highly skeptical view of
global warming. Recent Gallup Poll results suggest that this skepticism among Republican and
conservative elites has led rank-and-file Republicans to follow suit, as currently there is a large gap

The
growing gap is apparent in results from a decade of Gallup polling
on the issue, including the results from this year's Gallup
Environment Poll, conducted March 6-9, 2008.
between self-identified Republicans and Democrats in terms of perceptions of global warming.

Climate Policy Unpopular

Climate Change Issues Controversial

Climate debates spark partisanship
Dunlap, Gallup Scholar for the Environment, 8
[Riley E., Regents Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University and
Gallup Scholar for the Environment with Gallup, 5/29/8, Gallup, ClimateChange Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand Sharp divergence on
whether the effects of global warming are yet
evident,http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-viewsrepublicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]
Historically, support for environmental protection in the
United States has been relatively nonpartisan. Republicans pointed with pride to
PRINCETON, NJ --

Theodore Roosevelt's crucial role in promoting the conservation of natural resources by establishing
national parks and forests, and Democrats applauded Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to include
conservation as part of the "New Deal" via the Soil Conservation Service and related programs. Especially
notable was how Richard Nixon collaborated with a Democratic Congress by signing several of our nation's

The
situation began to change in the 1980s, as the Reagan
administration labeled environmental regulations a burden that
needed to be eased. While a temporary backlash from environmentalists and much of the
most important pieces of environmental legislation into law in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

public resulted, Republicans nonetheless enjoyed a good deal of electoral success in arguing that

This theme has been amplified in

passing decades, and one consequence has been a growing partisan
divide over environmental protection (and other government
programs). The divide was most noticeable among political elites,
such as members of Congress, who tend to be more ideologically
polarized than is the general public. What had been a modest, but significant,
"government is the problem, not the solution."

difference in Republican and Democratic levels of pro-environmental voting in Congress since 1970
became a noticeable gap after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.[i] In the
past decade, it has become a chasm in both the House and Senate, as reflected in recent voting
"scorecards" issued by the League of Conservation Voters. Nonetheless, partisan differences in support for
environmental protection among the general public remained relatively modest. For example, from the
early 1970s until the mid-1990s, support for increased spending on environmental protection by selfidentified Democrats was typically only around 10 points higher than for self-identified Republicans.[ii]

The gap began to widen in the late 1990s, likely reflecting voters'
tendency to follow cues from party leaders and political pundits.
Nowhere is the partisan gap on environmental issues more apparent
than on climate change. Beginning in the 1990s, particularly in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol
calling for reduced CO2 emissions was established, conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh
began to critique both the evidence for global warming and proposals for reducing carbon emissions.

It

would appear that the vigorous conservative campaign against

climate-change advocates (especially Al Gore) has contributed to
leaders of the Republican Party adopting a highly skeptical view of
global warming. Recent Gallup Poll results suggest that this skepticism among Republican and
conservative elites has led rank-and-file Republicans to follow suit, as currently there is a large gap

The
growing gap is apparent in results from a decade of Gallup polling
on the issue, including the results from this year's Gallup
Environment Poll, conducted March 6-9, 2008.
between self-identified Republicans and Democrats in terms of perceptions of global warming.

Adv Link--- Climate Policy Unpopular

Plan unpopular climate focus alienates the public
Real Clear Politics 5-11 (2014, Salena Zito, 'Climate' a Huge Threat to Democrats in Washington
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/climate_a_huge_threat__to_democrats_in_washington_122600.html#ixzz32OgkzL57)
No one knows yet if Dutton will win his bid for Congress; he is just one candidate in a five-person
Republican primary in Georgia's 12th Congressional District, fighting to face U.S. Rep. John Barrow, an

One thing Dutton already has won is the sentiment of a

country dumbfounded that President Barack Obama last week
defined climate change as the most pressing issue facing the
country. Obama did so as part of a huge public relations campaign yes, campaign that included
asking people to pressure Washington to act on the issue. Not jobs. Not the economy. Not
rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Not gang violence, or education .
Climate change. And he and his party ridiculed anyone who disagrees. A couple of
things about all of this smack the sensibilities of regular folks. First,
Augusta Democrat.

most people know Earth's climate always has changed; everyone knows about this little thing called the

most people don't care for is the issue being used politically
to slice and dice the country, the same way the minimum wage,
gender, race, immigration and religion have been used by this
administration. This is why folks do not look toward Washington, D.C., to solve problems anymore.
This is why young people the Millennials are so turned off by
the brands of both political parties, a one-time advantage that
Democrats have completely squandered. And this is why we have
wave-election cycles. Also, most folks who don't live in the privileged enclaves of high society
Ice Age. What

or high academia or high government would argue that other, more pressing crises most of them hidden
in plain sight should be considered the gravest threat to our country in our lifetime. Things such as
subpar graduation rates in our inner-city schools, or the 90 million people who have left the nation's
workforce in the past six years, or our economy being less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last
three decades or that a Brookings study showed, between 2009 and 2011, small businesses were
collapsing faster than they were being formed. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka cautioned Obama and
Democrats to consider how millions of livelihoods outside of D.C. would be impacted: We are prepared
to ... make sacrifices, but not while the most privileged in our society stand on the sidelines and expect our
poorest communities to bear the costs. A wave election is building beyond Washington not a tsunami,
but a wave yet most experts don't see it because they define an electoral wave as a large flip to the
party in power; Republicans already control the House and probably will add more seats to their list. Those
experts should review the results of November's races for state legislatures, governors' mansions and the
U.S. Senate, and then rethink their definition of a wave. And Democrats should rethink what really
constitutes a pressing issue.

Climate policies are unpopular trends

New York Times 10 (Jan 26, Alex Kaplun, ClimateWire, If Polls Say 'Yes'

to a Climate Bill, Why Do Lawmakers Say 'Maybe'?

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/26/26climatewire-if-polls-say-yes-to-aclimate-bill-why-do-la-41121.html?pagewanted=all)
Should climate change legislation move to the forefront of the
national political debate, that does not mean the current levels of
support for a bill will remain constant, as support for seemingly
popular ideas can fall off the cliff once it becomes the dominant
issue of the day. Democrats would have to look no further than
health care reform, where public support has fallen as the debate has dragged on. Another

example cited by some pollsters is President George W. Bush's effort to reform social security -- an idea
that tested well initially but whose support quickly collapsed as the Capitol Hill debate got under way. "It's
unclear if this were to move up on the agenda, whether those numbers would change or not," said Doherty
of Pew. "At

this point, it's a gut-level response to something that most

voters probably haven't thought very much about." The polls have
already shown some troubling signs for climate change supporters.
The Washington Post poll, for example, which showed 65 percent for
climate change legislation in December, showed 75 percent support
just six months earlier. The 54 percent support found in the NBC
News/Wall Street Journal represented a drop of 2 percentage points
from just a couple months earlier but a 10-percentage-point drop
from 2007. And a Pew poll released in the fall showed a drop of 14 points in the
percentage of voters that believed there is solid evidence that the Earth is
warming and a 9-percentage-point drop in the voters that saw global
warming a "serious" problem -- one of several polls that has shown increased voter
skepticism over the issue. "There's a lot of movement going on here, which makes people even more
uneasy," Borick said. "There

may still be majority support, but the trend

lines are going in the other direction."

Energy Policy Unpopular

Ocean Energy Unpopular - Aesthetic

Ocean energy is unpopular no sufficient technology and
ruins views
King, White House Chronicle columnist, 6/15/14
[Llewellyn, 6/15/14, Anchorage Daily News, Ocean power, the other
renewable, is on its way, http://www.adn.com/2014/06/15/3518753/oceanpower-the-other-renewable.html, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]

In the United States there are complex legal hurdles from activists,
who worry that beaches could be impaired and their recreational
value diminished, to the fascinating challenge of who in government
is responsible for licensing this new use of the ocean. Contenders
include the Department of the Interior, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which
controls the electric markets.
What about fishing? The states will want a say with their coastal
commissions. What about offshore shipping lanes and even
recreational boating? The oceans are vast and they already are
invaded by drilling rigs, wind turbines and undersea military activity ,
to say nothing of traditional marine uses like shipping, fishing and
boating.
Yet, so far, the problems have been technological rather than
governmental. The sea is a great resource, but it is a hostile
environment for mechanical and electrical equipment . At present, the
nascent ocean energy industry is still sorting through a galaxy of devices for
making electricity from ocean kinetic power. These show engineering
imagination run riot -- gloriously so.
As many as 100 machines for harnessing the ocean are being developed
around the world. They can be described as gizmos, widgets, gadgets,
devices, or dream machines.

Econ Policy Unpopular

Econ focus causes dem disenchantment general
improvements dont hit home for voters
AIM 5/13 (2014, Accuracy in Media Newswire, Reuters Claims Rising U.S.
Economy could save Democrats in 2014 Midterm Elections
http://www.aim.org/newswire/reuters-claims-rising-u-s-economy-could-savedemocrats-in-2014-midterm-elections/)
A Reuters analysis, written by Richard Cowan, alleged that the U.S.
economy is becoming stronger. He started his piece with the following: Heres a riddle:
WASHINGTON

Many Republicans deny its happening. Some Democrats dont want to talk about it. What is it? The answer
is the growing U.S. economy, on pace to expand as much as 3.5 percent this year, about the best
performance in the industrialized world. Unemployment has fallen from 10 percent to about 6.3 percent
and consumer confidence is at a six-year high. Yet, when you take an average of several polls, as the
website RealClearPolitics does, you find that Americans are not hot on Obama either. He has not had an

Gallup polls have also

reiterated how bleak the U.S. economy has been under Obama. 55%
of polled voters in their weekly poll on the state of the economy said
the economy was getting worse, compared to about 40% who felt
the economy was improving. According to the same weekly poll, the last time that voters
felt the economy was improving was in June 2013 by a 49-45 split. Even a strategist at a
firm whose clients are Democratic candidates, Erica Seifert, was quoted
as saying: Its bad for Democrats to make the argument the
economy is improving. Bad, bad, bad. Why are Americans so down
on the economy? As Cowan paraphrased some of Seiferts remarks, it is because
many American voters see an economic landscape still littered with
long-term joblessness, stagnant wages and excessive personal
debt.
approval rating higher than his disapproval rating since June of last year.

Econ focus unpopular improvement is popular, but too

many voters dont feel the effects
Reuters 5/12 (2014, Richard Cowan, Rising U.S. economy could help
Democrats stave off election loss
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/us-usa-campaign-congressanalysis-idUSBREA4B01Z20140512)
"Signs of life in the economy could be a major plus for the Democrats," wrote Greg Valliere of Potomac
Research Group in an April 21 note to subscribers. " Most

Americans still think we're in

a recession (it ended in June of 2009), but attitudes could change by
Labor Day, which would give Democrats a crucial boost" in November, he said. For now, too
many Americans are not feeling the effects of an improving
economy, said Ron Bonjean, a longtime Republican strategist and partner at Singer Bonjean
Strategies. "You need to have three or four months of solid job growth on
the national and local level," he said, adding, "The number of people
dropping out (of the labor force) needs to slow down" before Obama
and his Democrats can even start touting it.

Federal Water Leases Unpopular

Federal water leases link confusion over jurisdiction and
environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
offshore aquaculture

is appealing

The prospect of
in the deeper federal waters
for many reasons. Currently,
the United States imports more than 80 percent of the seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually.
And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States originated in aquaculture farms, not in

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council, one of the eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, developed its own plan
to lease parcels of federal waters in the Gulf to large-scale commercial fish farms. The general
the wild. That trade imbalance has raised economic and food security concerns. In 2003,

consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the
regional councils to manage the industry. This process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish

The Gulf Councils plan

became mired in years of public hearings and protests as
environmental groups worried over potential flaws in the plan and
challenged the councils authority to lease federal waters. There were
more public hearings than have ever been held for a plan before,
species were working with are subtropical salmon farming is not the same as farming red drum.

Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a

lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, Durged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over
proper authority and environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February
necessary step to become law. Meanwhile,
W.Va.,

2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot ocean space to a growing list of industries.

Regulation Streamlining
Unpopular
Deregulation causes controversy federalism issues and
environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
regulatory fragmentation when it comes to many ocean issues makes
the oceans a regulatory orphan, as Florida State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of
U.S.

Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined government plans for

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, convened in

called for the establishment of a national council on ocean
policy to coordinate the various agencies work. A similar report published in 2003 by the Pew Oceans Commission also called for a
managing ocean-based industries, including offshore aquaculture.

2000 by Congress to assess the health of the oceans, published a report in 2004 that

national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-pointsource pollution. Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the
subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the

But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House and Senate
bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory
system for offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee, in
part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were widely criticized as
fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary
fledgling industry.

of Commerce, rather than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean

As with questions of marine spatial planning in general,

different interests still debate whether there should be a national
aquaculture policy and regulation or regional policies . When it comes to fisheries in state waters, regional
ecosystems at risk, Leonard says.

management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management
councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.

Executive Orders Unpopular

Ocean XO links GOP opposition to XO process, spending,
environmental issues and states rights
Rebekah Rast Media Outreach Director at Americans for Limited
Government Communications Coordinator for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) at U.S.
House of Representatives 10-31-2012 Obamas environmental policies
extend to Americas oceansand into the upcoming elections
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/10/obamas-environmental-policies-extend-toamericas-oceans-and-into-the-upcoming-elections/ DA: 6/10/14
You can definitely see a partisan line when it comes to environmental
policies in this country. One side thinks many related laws and regulations go
too far; the other side thinks many of these laws dont go far
enough. However, it seems this partisan line also stretches past the land of the U.S. and deep into its
oceans. In 2010, when President Obama passed his executive order Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, he claimed it strengthens
ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective coastal and marine spatial
planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Not everyone agrees with his claim

oceans and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this
election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the
and now this

countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many Democrats
and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The
Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind
farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in
added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like

its lack of support from

many Republican members of Congress, it is the process by which
this policy was put into placethrough Executive Order that is
most puzzling and troublesome to some. In 2007, a similar bill was proposed in Congress, which at that time was controlled by
air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms, as quoted by the Washington Post. Despite

Democrats in both chambers, called OCEANS-21. It would have established a comprehensive National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today.

Obama chose to ignore

the will of Congress altogether, by mandating the policy into existence with a
overly broad use of his powers to issue an Executive Orderinvolving only a small team of White House staff. As Rep. Southerland
The bill never became law. In spite of having an overwhelming partisan Democrat majority in his first two years in office,

compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have. However, it is not an uncommon practice of

This is exactly what concerns Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.),

the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman. The Washington Post summarizes his thoughts as not being
opposed to a national ocean policy, per se, but concerned about the
administrations vague and broad definition of what ocean means exactly. If it includes runoff from land in its jurisdiction then it
government, when it is given a little jurisdiction, to take much more.

could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of

the House voted in May to block the

federal government from spending money on implementing the
policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. In an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) earlier this year, Jim Donofrio, executive
concern for the thousands of American jobs that rely on Americas Great Lakes and oceans,

director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman Hastings comments even farther and said that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft.

This is a government takeover of every piece of water that drains into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he
says. This is taking states rights away, land rights and personal
property rights.

XO ocean policy costs capital even if the issue is popular,

GOP opposes the process
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress,
received a masters degree in marine affairs from the University of Rhode
Island in 2005 4-13-2012 Fish on Fridays: Sensible Ocean Policy Falling
Victim to Political Games

http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fish-onfridays-sensible-ocean-policy-falling-victim-to-political-games/ DA: 6/10/14

Even in the bitterest partisan times ocean issues tend to exist
outside the traditional political boxing ring.
Members who represent coastal states
usually recognize the
value
and prioritize them
But in
recent months the escalation of rancor and polarization
encompassed even the normally temperate issue of ocean policy.
Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House
where Republicans
Obamas
Ocean Policy public enemy
number one
the policy implemented by an executive order
has been taking fire from
opponents
,

They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party

affiliation.

and districts

of sustaining and investing in our valuable ocean resources,

they

more than their inland counterparts.

Committee on Natural Resources,

have made President Barack

. Ever since its roll-out,

National

in 2010 to

provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes

who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this country, in

the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-

boiling these statements down to their roots

leaves little more than bald political rhetoric
use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning

. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help

safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both
hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are
proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the
National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists, industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example
of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep.
Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National
Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its
inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the development of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate
those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and
inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic
growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President
Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for
hundreds of miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is
designed specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination between the agencies responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves.
The news this week provided specific examples of why such coordination is necessary. Pesticide use was found to affect Pacific salmon populations, and ocean acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These
may seem like obvious conclusions to draw, but they both exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh
water be before it becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when
he famously poked fun at the governments management of salmon. The Interior Department handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. And I hear it
gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of salmon management is far more
sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the Department of the Interiors Fish
and Wildlife Service does manage some salmon habitat programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries
in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of sense that we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult
for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National Ocean Policy is
designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across traditional agency
boundaries but could also have devastating ramifications for the day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks
eliminating funding for many of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing
pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and prevent their rebuilding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for
fishery stock assessments Conducting research on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative to
investigate potential ecosystem and economic benefits of shellfish aquaculture Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than
half of all fish caught in US waters [that] depend on the estuaries and coastal wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from
rivers and streams that can lead to massive fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not new, and administration officials have been
abundantly clear in their testimony before Congress and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space.

The
Ocean Policy
sets forth a proactive framework
exactly what small government Republicans claim they want
Maybe next time we should get
Ryan to propose it.
Healthy oceans and coasts are among the strongest economic drivers and most valuable resources our nation possesses.

National

recognizes this fact and

to streamline government involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more value for

their dollars

Rep. Paul

(R-WI)

Executive Actions Spend Political Capital

Executive agencies have to spend political capital
Cooney, Washington DC based Lawyer, 10
[John, 11/3/2010, Inside Council, Regulatory: The Obama Regulatory Agenda
After the Elections, http://www.insidecounsel.com/2010/11/03/the-obamaregulatory-agenda-after-the-elections, accessed 7/7/2014 CK]
Republican capture of control of the House of Representatives has
changed the mechanisms through which the Obama Administration
will pursue its regulatory policy objectives and ensures that disputes
between the political parties over regulations will be a recurring feature of the
run-up to the 2012 elections.
Until November 2nd, the President led by obtaining landmark
legislation from a Congress dominated by his party, and he had little
need for concern about legislative oversight of his Administration's
initiatives. The President has now lost the opportunity to obtain
legislation granting him broad additional authority. He will have to
advance his policies through unilateral Executive Branch actions,
such as issuance of regulations, executive orders, heightened
enforcement and aggressive interpretation of existing laws. The
heads of Executive agencies also will have to reallocate their time
and political capital to defend the inevitable House oversight
hearings on controversial programs.

Environment/Fish

Fishing

Fishing Regulation Unpopular

Fishing regulations are unpopular among coastal
communities threaten job security
Rep. Fleming, R-Louisiana, 12

[Rep. John Fleming, US Representative 4th Congressional District of Louisiana

and chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans and Insular Affairs, 3/30/12, The Hill, National Ocean Policy is an
executive power grab, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-aenvironment/219309-national-ocean-policy-is-an-executive-power-grab,
accessed 7/9/14, GNL]
Perhaps the simplest way to describe this policy and council is to
envision a national zoning board for oceans and all of the inland
communities and activities that might affect the oceans. Youve
probably dealt with a local zoning board that keeps order between residential
neighborhoods and busy commercials areas. You may not always agree with
their decisions, but we can all appreciate local control over such matters.
President Obamas National Ocean Policy takes zoning to a massive
scale, giving Washington pencil pushers more power to decide what
activities are acceptable in the ocean zones they create. And when
federal agencies are authorizing activities, the converse can be
assumed: they will close off other activities, and limit authorized
activities only to approved zones. The uncertainty that results will
further limit economic growth.
Coastal communities have already felt the pain of tough economic times.
Fishermen are having a hard time making ends meet and many are seeing
their harvest levels reduced, while their cost of doing business continues to
rise. The House subcommittee I chair has heard testimony describing how
harvest levels have been driven down by the lack of agency-funded stock
assessments and the closing of fishing grounds. Now, this proposed new
policy threatens to take more money from fishery surveys, and will
create more closures.
To make matters worse, this new National Ocean Policy will reach far
inland with new zoning plans, and could use ocean water quality as a
way of threatening even farming and forestry practices.
The presidents plan enhances uncertainty by giving precedent to
ecosystem health over the economic impact of human activities, even
if those activities were previously authorized or occurring in an area. That
means government bureaucrats, working behind closed doors, may decide
that their views on climate change or water quality both priorities in the
policy will win out over the longstanding interests of people who have
depended for decades on the oceans and waterways for their livelihood.
Imagine putting those decisions, along with the vague and undefined policy
goals of the executive order, in the hands of special interest groups whose
agenda is to abolish virtually all human activity. The litigation and court
challenges will be endless, and the permits that fishermen and
coastal businesses need to continue making a living will be hard to
come by.

The presidents plan, which has flown under the transparency and
accountability radar, lists nearly 60 milestones for federal agencies to
accomplish this year as they implement the policy, with another 92
milestones slated for 2013. Yet no federal agency has requested funding for
these activities. That means existing missions and management activities of
several federal agencies will be put at risk because federal dollars will be repurposed to support this policy.
President Obamas National Ocean Policy should be authorized by specific
legislation and funded through the regular appropriations process.
Implementing this power grab through an executive order, with funds
diverted from other Congressionally-appropriated programs is simply wrong.
Existing laws already manage fisheries, and we dont need a costly,
massive, new, job-destroying layer of bureaucracy to centralize more
power in Washington, and jeopardize the liberties of hard-working
citizens. Until Congress receives answers to the questions we have asked
about the authority and funding for this National Ocean Policy, I will continue
to oppose this policy.

Link Fishery Management

Fishery management funding costs PC requires arm
twisting for spending
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in
the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14
There has been a lot of rhetoric over the past six months or more about
cutting federal spending. The truth is, there's only about 10 percent of the budget Congress has much say over,
unless they begin tackling the defense budget and some entitlement programs. That means the fishery management
budget is in the crosshairs since it's part of that "discretionary" 10 percent of
funding Congress can go after. Now if NMFS were USDA, there'd probably be a fair amount of pork to cut, but, in fact, fishing
has always been a poor stepchild in the federal appropriations
process, even when stalwarts like Warren Magnuson and Ted Stevens were alive, so cuts in these programs are likely to be painful.
Appropriations.

Removing the funding for catch shares -- at least until it gets straightened out and some consensus is developed among the fleet on what
catch share programs, if any, should look like -- would be one place to cut. Another place where change could be made to NMFS' budget would
be reprogramming Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds to something useful, instead of offshore aquaculture or catch shares. An alternative to the
annual appropriations process for funding many essential fishery data collection programs, as we have been saying for many years, would be
through the creation of a National Fishery Trust Fund (see FN "Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research," August 2003,
www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm). The framework for such a fund was provided for in an amendment sponsored by Senators Ted Stevens and
Barbara Boxer in the last MSA reauthorization. Depending on its source, such a stand-alone dedicated trust fund could finally provide the

The problem we see

in the new House is whether the creation of such a fund would be labeled a
"new tax." Trying to educate the new House leadership that such a fund is a
necessary investment in the future of America's oldest industry could be difficult.
stable financial support necessary for continuous fishery data collection and expanded research.

Fisheries support costs PC Obama pushes, spending

causes intense opposition and pushes off other agenda
items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime
Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budge
t+Outlook+for+Maritime+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year,
was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in Congress in the midst of two very different
views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These

resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House
resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March
23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in
the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent
[infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital
to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of
Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance
our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration
("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the
Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and
mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from
75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The
President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See
H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has
requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including
funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic
and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These
agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National
Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation
is passed this year. For NOAA,

the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan.

$929 million for

Fisheries

The budget includes

the National Marine
Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which the
Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of
$2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21
million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings

The House of Representatives is likely to pass

bills that are vastly different from the White House's request. In fact,
Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation
Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full funding can be provided for the
Commerce/NOAA budgets. It also remains to be seen whether Congress can
revert to regular order, i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another
CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this is not likely
to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The
government keeps limping along with cuts from sequester , delays in
Congressional approval for spending plans, and uncertainties in the
outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed. The House
and Senate will once again have to debate their respective visions for the 2014 budget
featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
appropriation

and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a

Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the

debt ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
fight over offsetting budget cuts.

Fishery management funding causes controversy GOP

budget conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,

do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget

conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe
most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But

fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing

Republicans

these necessary services to the American people, congressional

must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and
spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and

Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.

will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
places to hunt, fish, and relax.

Impact on

public lands and

oceans

The Whit e House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determ ining that the sequestration percent ages for the non-defense function would be a reduct ion of 8.2 percent for discret ionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discret ionary, except for one account in the C oast Guard that

has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is im portant to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not prov ide much specificity about how these cuts would be adm inistered to individual programs within agencies. It list s them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriat ions are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Serv ice operat ions budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which serv ices or which parks will bear the brunt of this reduct iont hose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily
assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the serv ices and values that the agencies prov ide. Less accurat e weather forecast s One of the most im portant and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestrat ion could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weat her forecasting by cutt ing the budget for the agency where weat her prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurat e natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for crit ical weather prediction
resources. Its National Weather Service is the nat ions primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane C enters storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the Weather C hannels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nat ions when it comes to forecast ing capabilit ies. As accurate as the Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall day s before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy, they
frequent ly referenced the European models predict ions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domest ic weather predict ion capabilit ies trail the Europeans in many capacit ies, sequestrat ions 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data last ing 17 to 53 monthst he time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys

Energy development is an important and legitimate use

of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial
Procurement, Acquisit ion, and C onstruct ion account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets project ions. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalit ies due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development

natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal

Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,

studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer
lands and waters.

significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

management agencies face cuts to the programs

ocean

that allow them to plan for, study, perm it, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means project s will take longer to get approved and set up, delay ing the process of energy development and in some cases

potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a great er reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to it s Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and minerals management, including perm it processing and env ironmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlif e Service also has funds that allow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habit ats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts
could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development , the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages explorat ion, science, leasing, permitt ing, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy dev elopment on the Outer C ontinental Shelf. Addit ionally, offshore drilling safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardst he Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 million altogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in it s budget justificat ion: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer C ont inental Shelf] facilit ies and operat ionscovering tens of thousands of safety and pollution prevention componentsto prevent offshore accidents and spills and to ensure a safe working env ironment. The bureau strives to conduct annual inspections of all oil and gas operations on the OCS, while focusing an increasing proport ion of resources on the highest risk operat ions in order to examine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, and other major accidents. A $16 million cut to these operat ions could be dangerous for worker safety and well-being, as well as that of the ecosystems, communit ies, and businesses that rely
on a healthy ocean. Further reduct ions to the budget of the U.S. C oast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spill, could also affect its ability to respond to emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wildland firefighters Our land management agencies also make crit ical inv estments in fighting forest and wildland fires. This year saw devastat ing fires on both private and public lands but was particularly bad for nat ional forestsa fire in the Gila National Forest, for example, was New Mexicos largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire C enter has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and critical funding for fighting these blazes. They help
keep American families safe in times of need, part icularly those whose homes are close to wild places. But the U.S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to it s firefighting capabilit ies under sequestration. Its Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire suppression, hazardous-fuels removal, restorat ion, and state fire assist ance, among other things, is slated to be cut by $172 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequest er moves forward. Additionally, the Department of the Interiors Wildland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestration. In total, funding for wildland fire prevention and assist ance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 million. Without such funding, not only
will Americans property and lives be more at risk, but special places such as nat ional forest s and nat ional parks will be less resilient in the face of future fires. C losures of nat ional parks Nat ional parksoften referred to as Americas best ideaare well- loved and protect our natural, cultural, and historical heritage. In addition to famous national parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand C anyon, the 398 nat ional park unit s managed by the Nat ional Park Service range from C ape Cod National Seashore to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to the Flight 93 Nat ional Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these nat ional park unit s would face budgetary im pact s under sequestration. These could include park closures, fewer visitor resources including educational programs, and a reduction in park staff such as rangers who help wit h upkeep on these sites.
C ombined, all of these changes could lead to far worse visitor ex periences at national parks, making them less desirable vacat ion dest inat ions for American and int ernational tourists. Specifically , the Office of Management and Budget determined that the National Park Service as a whole faces a $218 million cut in fiscal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the majority of this cut is in the O peration of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protect ion of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, visitor services like educat ion and interpretat ion, and maintenance such as trail construct ion and campgrounds. Potent ial cuts to the nat ional Park Serv ice in fiscal year 2013 The Operation of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay
the Nat ional Park Services employees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 millioncut to the Operation of the Nat ional Park System account could cripple some of the most im portant functions of the National Park Serv ice, which was already facing a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backlog. While it is difficult to know for sure what exact ly would be cut due to lack of informat ion from the agency, the National Parks C onserv ation Association speculates that these cuts would very likely lead to the furloughingor indefinite closureof nat ional parks. A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season. The organization also warned that cuts of this magnitude could lead to park closures and calculated that an approximat ely 8 percent cut would be
equivalent to closing up to 200 national park units with the smallest operat ing budgets, closing 150 parks with low visitat ion rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the National Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosem ite, and Gateway National Recreation Area. In addit ion to the fact that visitors may not be able to see these places, their closures could also lead to declines in revenue and even jobst he National Park Service st imulated $31 billion in economic contribut ions and 258,000 jobs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also prov ide important opportunit ies for recreat ion, including hunt ing and fishing. Many of the areas that are open to these act ivit ies also prov ide nonwildlife-related recreat ion opportunities such as hiking, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas im portant
places to play, they also are important economic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that more than 37 million Americans hunt ed or fished in 2011, contribut ing billions of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee recreat ional hunting and fishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages 256 million acres of public lands, much of which is open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget line item is Management of Lands and Resources, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account will see an $85 million cut in fiscal year 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fishing opportunit ies
because it funds wildlife programs and manages the nat ional wildlife refuges that serve as fish and game habitats. The Resource Management account in its budget houses operat ions such as visitor serv ices, law enforcement , refuge maintenance, habitat conservat ion, and nat ional fish-hat chery operat ions. This account would see a $105 million cut in fiscal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The North American Wetlands C onservation Fund, which prov ides federal grants to restore wet lands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million, while the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson), which prov ides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million. The Forest Serv ice also faces cut s that would impair its ability to prov ide American sportsmen with
recreat ion opportunities. Its National Forest System account, which would be cut by $129 million, funds priorit ies such as forest restorat ion, which prov ides new places to hunt and fish; planning in order to manage recreation opportunit ies; and an entire account devoted to Recreat ion, Heritage, and Wilderness. In addition, its Forest and Rangeland Research line it em, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development , would be cut by $24 million, and the State and Privat e Forestry account, which prov ides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million. While it is unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potent ial implications of budget cutsthere is litt le doubt that cuts would im pact the hunting and fishing experience that

saltwater fisheries, both commercial and

managed by the [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys National Marine Fisheries Service. Despite an onerous and
costly legal mandate to end overfishing in U.S. waters and set strict science-based annual catch limits in all fisheries beginning in 2011, this services budget
has already declined by more than 10 percent from an all-time high of $1 billion in 2010 to $895 million
for fiscal year 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Operations, Research, and Facilities accountwhich includes funding for
day-to-day operations of the National Marine Fisheries Servicewill be cut by 8.2 percent if sequestration occurs. If the Office of
Americans currently enjoy. And cuts of this magnitude could potentially lead to a decline in the quality of wildlif e habitat , fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishing values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deteriorat ion of visitor facilities, fewer education programs, unprocessed hunting and access permits, and the basic disintegration of visitor ex periences overallall of which means less rev enue. Less fish on your table Americas

recreational, are

Management and Budget applies that reduction equally across all the agencys departments, that would mean a further reduction of $73 million from the National Marine
Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut this year. These cuts could have major impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestration cuts
end up being distributed, they will mean the agencys fisheries scientists will have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stock
assessments on which catch limits are based. If scientists know less, they will have to be more conservative with catch limits to ensure overfishing does not occur. This
means fishermen will be forced to catch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportunities, less fish in the marketplace, and a loss of revenue to coastal businesses
and communities. The cuts will also have impacts on jobs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massive economic driver in coastal regions. Saltwater anglers spent $19.5
billion in 2009, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreational fishing industry was directly responsible for more than 300,000 jobs
(these figures do not include costs such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services). This same report found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1

Members of the House of Representatives

million jobs and more than $116 billion in sales impacts.

Appropriations Committee stated in a report on the 2012 budget for the federal governments Commerce, Justice, and Science account that, Healthy levels of

legislation accompanying that report still

slashed more than $200 million from the presidents recommended
budget. Sequestration will cut even more.
investment in [fisheries] scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth. And yet the

Link Catch Shares

Catch shares cost PC Obama push ensures opposition
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in
the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

the Obama Administration's present push for

catch shares. The "policy," such as it is, is largely the product of the Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF), which, almost alone among environmental groups, has adopted a neo-liberal dogma stressing
"market-based" solutions to resolve environmental conflicts. These usually involve the privatization of publicly-held
Catch Shares. We're not certain how the new Congress will receive

resources such as water and fish. It's hard to predict how the populist-oriented Tea-Party will take to a program best suited for Wall Street's

Think of it as trying to mesh Salina, Kansas with

Southport, Connecticut. There is little doubt that Congress needs to review the individual fishing quota systems
hedge fund managers.

currently in place in some fisheries, including the Obama Administration's continuance of those Bush-era programs -- adding sector allocation
-- under the catch share banner, as well as limited access privilege programs generally. Consolidation, de facto privatization of fish resources,

The question is, is this the

Congress to do that? The good news here is that with the Obama Administration pushing the EDF
catch share agenda so aggressively, it could make that program an
anathema to new House members. Some Democrats, too, from Peter DeFazio to Barney
Frank, have also found NOAA's catch shares plans to be toxic.
and the fate of the nation's fishing communities requires looking at.

Coral Reefs

Preservation Controversial
Coral reef preservation leads to backlash and fights
everybody hates it
Golden, Daily Beast, 14

[Abigail, 6/23/14, The Daily Beast, Republicans: Obamas Ocean Protection

Plan Evidence of Imperial Presidency ,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/republicans-obamas-ocean-protection-plan-evidence-of-imperial-presidency.html,
accessed 7/9/14, AC]
President Obama announced last week that he plans to add massive
amounts of territory to the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine
Monument, a tract of ocean surrounding seven hard-to-reach islands and
atolls in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Obamas decision will expand the
original reserve, created by George W. Bush in the last days of his presidency,
by almost five times its original size. The expanded national monument will
quintuple the number of seamounts, or underwater mountains, under federal
protection, and close almost 780,000 square miles of ocean to tuna fishing.
Obamas decision has been hailed for its conservation impact by
scientists and even by the New York Times editorial board. Gareth Williams, a
researcher at Scripps who studies the coral reefs within the reserve,
hailed the expanded national monument as protecting some of the most
intact natural areas left on the planet. Its almost impossible to find another
example of that, forests included, Williams told The Daily Beast. There are
always examples of degradation, but there are very few examples of
ecosystems left that are thatpristine.
But plenty of people arent happy with Obamas decision, and the
next few monthsin which the exact details of the expansion will be up for
reviewmay be contentious ones. These are the groups that have most at
stake in opposing the expanded Remote Pacific Islands reserve:
1. Republican lawmakers
Obamas use of an executive order to establish the reserve expansion
angered Republicans in government, who viewed it as an attempt to test
the limits of White House authority. Congressman Doc Hastings (RWash.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee,
was quick to denounce Obama as an Imperial President who is
intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new
regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.
By Hastings standards, another candidate for an imperial presidency would
be George W. Bush, who created four marine national monuments during his
time in office.
By Hastings standards, then, another candidate for an imperial presidency
would be George W. Bush, who created four marine national monuments
during his time in office, totaling some 300,000 square miles of protected
ocean.
2. The commercial fishing industry.

Currently, about 3 percent of the U.S. tuna catch in the western and southern
Pacific comes from the area now under protection, according to Pew
Charitable Trusts. Congressman Hastings has criticized Obama for
closing this area to tuna fishing, cautioning that this move will make
the U.S. tuna fleet even less viable, meaning that in the not-too-distant future
all of Americas tuna will be caught by foreign vessels.
Paul Dalzell, a senior scientist with the Western and Central Pacific
Regional Fisheries Management Council, echoed this industry-centric
approach. The islands [in the reserve] already have 50-nautical-mile
boundaries around them to protect all the coral reef and shallow water
habitats, so theyre more than adequately protected already, Dalzell told
The Daily Beast. But for migratory species like tuna, he argues, large-scale
ocean reserves have little conservation value, since tuna simply swim beyond
the boundaries of the closed areas to be caught by other fleets. The reserve
has no major conservation benefits, will penalize U.S. fishermen,
and theres no net gain, Dalzell continued.
Its worth noting that Pew Charitable Trusts, which works on ocean
conservation issues, has condemned the Western and Central Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management Council for its poor fisheries practices, which it claims
are hastening overfishing in the Pacific region.
3. Recreational fishers.
After Bush first established the Remote Pacific Islands reserve in 2009, the
American Sportfishing Association successfully petitioned for a
recreational fishing exemption within the reserve. Now the group, which
represents manufacturers of fishing tackle rather than sport fishermen
themselves, plans to push for the exemption to apply throughout the
expanded area.
We believe in almost all instances you can still have marine
conservation and make sure that your fisheries resources are in
good, healthy condition, and still allow some recreational fishing to
take place, Mike Leonard, a spokesperson for the ASA, told The Daily
Beast. The groups insistence on a recreational fishing exemption is mostly
academic, since the areas within the expanded reserve are so remote as to
be unreachable to sport fishermen. Williams, who has traveled to the reserve
repeatedly for his research, said that he has never seen a recreational fishing
boat there.

Coral reef preservation is unpopulardraws fire from a

variety of groups
Russell, Fox News Channel executive editor, 7/9/14
[George, 7/9/14, Fox News, Fishing in murky waters: the administrations
secretive oceans policies come under fire,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/fishing-in-murky-watersadministrations-secretive-oceans-policies-come-under/?
intcmp=latestnews, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
American fishermen are reacting with skepticism, concern and
frustration at the latest murky steps to prevent fishing in vast tracts
of the Pacific. The proposed expansion was announced along with

other White House ocean conservation initiatives on June 16, as the

kickoff to a two-day State Department conference aimed at greater
international coordination to overcome a variety of ocean ills, including not
only overfishing, but marine pollution and ocean acidification -- the last linked
by conservationists to global carbon emissions and climate change.
CLICK HERE FOR THE INITIATIVES
The announcements, and the oceans conference itself, also serve a
broader purpose: to link a sweeping and controversial U.S. oceans
policy the administration began implementing last year with broader
international efforts to achieve more ambitious sustainable goals
at sea, along the worlds coastlines and in the atmosphere by 2020.
The lack of information extends to the current announcement, which is
dramatic in tone but not very concrete in detail. According to the
administrations announcement, it will immediately consider how to expand
protections in the affected Pacific areas, a formulation that leaves plenty of
room for maneuvering on the initiatives, even as a State Department
spokesman told Fox News that our goal is to implement them as quickly as
possible.
The additional areas marked for preservation are located around the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument, a 77,000 square mile area south
and west of Hawaii that was created as a preserve by President George W.
Bush in 2006, two-and-a-half years before Barack Obama took office.
All of this is a terrible, terrible abuse of power.
- Doc Hastings, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural
Resources.
According to the White House, the area contains some of the most pristine
tropical marine environments in the world, which are also among the most
vulnerable areas to the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.
The current monument area extends about 50 miles out from the speckling of
islands that are considered U.S. territory, where commercial fishing and all
manner of marine dumping are forbidden. The administrations proposal
would likely seek to extend the preserve to the internationally recognized 200
mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the U.S. territories, and expand the
monument area about ten-fold, to roughly 782,000 sq. miles.
But even there, the administration remains cagey. Before making decisions
about the geographic scope and details of future marine protections, the
White House announced, we will consider the input of fishermen,
scientists, conservation experts, elected officials and other stakeholders.
That kind of tactical elusiveness is something that congressional
Republicans have long found frustrating, as they tried to block
funding for the overall ocean policy, charging that the initiative has never
received legislative approval, is not subject to congressional oversight, and
that its costs, scope and sources of funding have never been revealed.
All of this is a terrible, terrible abuse of power, charges Doc Hastings, the
chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. The president is
ruling by executive order, by fiat. Policy on oceans should come through
Congress. This is really an example of the administration simply not giving
information on what it is doing.
For its part, the administration has declared that no additional funding
beyond regular department budgets is being used to implement the overall

oceans policy, and it has made no announcements about additional staffing

related to the implementation.
The same holds true for the administrations National Oceans Implementation
Plan, released in April 2013. The policy does not create new regulations,
supersede current regulations, or modify any agencys established mission,
jurisdiction or authority, the document relates. Nor does it redirect
congressionally-appropriated funds, or direct agencies to divert funds from
existing programsall things that might trigger the legal need for
congressional approval.
Instead, it improves interagency collaboration and prioritization to help focus
limited resources and use taxpayer dollars more efficiently.
Yet, at the same time, the plan calls for sweeping restoration of
coastal wetlands and coral reefs, an increase in the number of students
pursuing marine science and management careers, the use of enhanced
sensing systems to examine what it happening in oceans in real time, the
carrying out of countless studies, and myriad other activities that normally
cost large amounts of additional money.

Artificial Reefs Controversial

Artificial reefs are unpopular and create controversy
Stewart, Santa Barbara Independent, 12
[Ethan, 7/26/12, Santa Barbara Independent, Artificial Reef Project
Moves Forward despite Controversy,
http://www.independent.com/news/2012/jul/26/artificial-reef-projectmoves-forward-despite-cont/, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
However, despite this, the structures are not without controversy.
After all, any time something large and manmade gets put in the
ocean, there is always the chance for disaster. As Teufelwho, in his
position as an Environmental Scientist for the Coastal Commissions
Ocean Resources Division, has had ample experience with similar
projectsputs it, It is not as simple as just chucking some
materials down and getting kelp and fish populations to move in. There is
quite a bit of scientific legwork required and a very lengthy permitting
process that includes everyone from us to the State Lands Commission to
the Army Corps of Engineers to Fish and Game.
Other concerns held by groups such as the Environmental Defense
Center and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper include the potential for
an inappropriately sited artificial reef to cause a fish population sink
or crash at nearby naturally occurring habitats or the luring of wildlife away
from the safe haven of existing marine protected areas to
unrestricted waters.
Given these worries, when word spread late last month that
Goldblatt had already installed a pair of reef balls without really
reaching out to the nearby environmental community or the various
regulatory agencies, not only did the collective neckhairs of Santa
Barbaras various ocean watchdog groups stand straight up, but the
Coastal Commissions enforcement wing also opened up an official
investigation and has since declared, via a written notice, that the two balls
meet the definition of development under the Coastal Act and now must seek
after-the-fact approval or be removed.

Plan-Specific Link: Coral Reef Exploration [1/1]

( ) The plan is unpopular its perceived as being overly cautious
toward the ocean
Gardner 2014

[Lauren. Writer for CQ Roll Call. Oceans Plan Meets Wave of GOP Resistance CQ Weekly,
6/4/14 Available via Lexis-Nexis]
On its face, the Obama administrations plan to begin implementing its National Ocean Policy
looks like something even the presidents most ardent opponents might like. The objective sounds
innocuous enough: safeguard the oceans and Great Lakes while encouraging sustainable
development of offshore resources. The plan aims to achieve that goal by coordinating the many
federal agencies that enforce the 140 laws affecting the oceans, coastlines and Great Lakes and by
streamlining the process for granting various permits. But President Obamas critics in Congress are

suspicious about the plan and are aggressively moving to block it. House Natural Resources
Chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, fears the blueprint will usher in ocean
zoning. Texas Republican Bill Flores succeeded in attaching a rider to the fiscal 2013
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would bar any expenditures to implement
the ocean policy, and Hastings vows to press for similar language in every spending bill that comes to
the House floor. The opposition reflects concerns by many of the industries that make a

living in the coastal waters including oil and natural gas producers, commercial
fishermen and seafood processors, boat owners and operators, shippers, and sports
fishermen. An industry-backed group called the National Ocean Policy Coalition backs
efforts to delay the policy through appropriations riders, saying that further policy
development and implementation should be suspended until Congress, user groups,
and the public have been fully engaged and all potential impacts have been assessed
and are understood.

Environment General

Environment General
Ocean protection links GOP opposition to Obama push,
spending, environmental issues and states rights
Rebekah Rast Media Outreach Director at Americans for Limited

Government Communications Coordinator for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) at U.S.

House of Representatives 10-31-2012 Obamas environmental policies
extend to Americas oceansand into the upcoming elections
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/10/obamas-environmental-policies-extend-toamericas-oceans-and-into-the-upcoming-elections/ DA: 6/10/14
You can definitely see a partisan line when it comes to environmental
policies in this country. One side thinks many related laws and regulations go
too far; the other side thinks many of these laws dont go far
enough. However, it seems this partisan line also stretches past the land of the U.S. and deep into its
oceans. In 2010, when President Obama passed his executive order Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, he claimed it strengthens
ocean governance and coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective coastal and marine spatial
planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Not everyone agrees with his claim

oceans and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this
election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the
and now this

countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many Democrats
and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The
Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind
farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in
added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like

its lack of support from

many Republican members of Congress, it is the process by which this policy was put into placethrough
air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms, as quoted by the Washington Post. Despite

Executive Order that is most puzzling and troublesome to some. In 2007, a similar bill was proposed in Congress, which at that time was controlled by Democrats in both
chambers, called OCEANS-21. It would have established a comprehensive National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today. The bill never
became law. In spite of having an overwhelming partisan Democrat majority in his first two years in office, Obama chose to ignore the will of Congress altogether, by
mandating the policy into existence with a overly broad use of his powers to issue an Executive Orderinvolving only a small team of White House staff. As Rep.
Southerland compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have. However, it is not an uncommon
practice of government, when it is given a little jurisdiction, to take much more. This is exactly what concerns Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman. The Washington Post summarizes his thoughts as not being opposed to a national ocean policy, per se, but concerned about the administrations
vague and broad definition of what ocean means exactly. If it includes runoff from land in its jurisdiction then it could open the door to regulating all inland activities,
because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of concern for the thousands of American jobs that rely on

the House voted in May to block the federal government

from spending money on implementing the policy , though the amendment has not passed the
Americas Great Lakes and oceans,

Senate. In an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) earlier this year, Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman

This is a government
takeover of every piece of water that drains into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he says. This is taking
states rights away, land rights and personal property rights.
Hastings comments even farther and said that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft.

Ocean environment protection costs PC Obama push

ensures opposition
Pete Stauffer Senior Manager, Ocean Program at Surfrider Foundation 61-2014 Keep the Stoke Alive Comments More Sharing ServicesShare Texas
Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean Policy
http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress-takes-aim-at-ournational-ocean-policy DA: 6/6/14
Flores and what does he have against the ocean? Last week, the Republican lawmaker from Bryan, Texas
led yet another effort in Congress to undermine the National Ocean Policy (NOP).
By a mostly party line vote, the U.S. House passed his amendment to an appropriations bill (HR 4660) to
defund the National Ocean Policy. The measure will next be considered by the Senate. Incredibly, this is
Who is Congressmen Bill

Rep. Flores sixth attempt in the past two years to obstruct implementation of the National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This

why is a lawmaker from a land-locked district taking

such a keen interest in ocean policy? The answer, not surprisingly, is politics.
raises an important question:

When the National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many shortcomings
of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean management. Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy -

a bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration across all levels of government to
address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional
ocean parterships (ROPs) that empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the

a glaring lack of support from

Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are
taking to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving forward
ocean. In just three years, important progress has been made, despite

to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have

such
success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where
controversy rules the day and political parties instinctively oppose
each others proposals. As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the policy
has suffered from partisan attacks, despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such
begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course,

political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in
states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.

Ocean environment protection controversial - partisan

politics
Alan Pierce, Tutor at College Living Experience , graduated from UC Santa
Barbara, 2012 Stop Congress From Defunding Ocean Protection Policies
http://forcechange.com/20971/stop-congress-from-defunding-oceanprotection-policies/ DA: 6/6/14

The U.S. Government may soon be taking two giant steps backward from recent
progress in environmental protection. In 2010, President Obama issued an executive order called the
National Ocean Policy, which ensures that beaches are kept clean, ocean wildlife and habitats are protected and that energy facilities (i.e. oil

the U.S. House of Representatives has now

voted to block the implementation of this refined ocean
management system by restricting federal funding towards ocean management
procedures. Opponents claim it creates unnecessary bureaucracy which
will inhibit economic growth. In reality, this is exactly the opposite of the intended outcomes for the National
drills) are sensibly located for best production and least environmental harm. However,

Ocean Policy. Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA) explains it simply, The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve
stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work
better together. With more than twenty agencies and 140 laws in place to regulate ocean industries, the NOP effectively improves efficiency
through increased communication and cross-management. The oil and gas industries that utilize ocean resources must have continuous,
transparent interaction with the fishing, recreation and protection agencies so that the ocean habitats do not face the destructive windfall of
inconsistent policies across industries. While environmental protection should be motivation enough, the National Ocean Policy will also ensure
stability and promote growth of the ocean tourism and recreation industry. In 2009, this sector produced upwards of 1.8 million jobs and over
$60 billion of the nations GDP. In total, not even the U.S. farm industry matches the output of the U.S. ocean economy. So criticism based on
the efficiency and economic viability of the National Ocean Policy is completely unfounded and those that read the policy will understand this

Partisan agendas and fear of federally funded programs should not be

allowed to affect the delicate and vastly diminished ocean habitats within U.S. territory. These amendments are not yet part of
very clearly.

the final spending bill, which will not be completed until later this year, and the Senate also has not yet finalized its bill. Before such action is
taken, support these critical ocean policy measures and ensure that the vital protection of ocean habitat is upheld.

Ocean protection costs PC GOP partisan fighting

Maggie Caldwell is a former senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones. 2-222013Good Riddance: 112th Congress Had Worst Environmental Record
Ever
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/112th-congress-league-ofconservation-voters-score-worst-ever
"The best that can be said about this session of the 112th Congress is that it's over," League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski

the League's 2012 Congressional Scorecard, released on

showed that in a year that saw record breaking heat waves, drought, wildfires, Hurricane Sandy, and other climatechange fueled disasters, the Republican-led House of Representatives came out with the
worst environmental record ever. The League tallies its scores by looking at each member of congress'
votes on laws that have major environmental implications. Last year, the House put forth more than 100
bills, riders, and amendments related to the environment and public health,
mostly with harmful effects. On top of that, House Republicans' proposals sought to
said this week. The sentiment comes in reaction to
Wednesday, which

trample on virtually every area related to the environment, from rolling back EPA
safeguards for waterways and wildlife that stand in the way of the pursuit of coal, to limiting the president's power to preserve land as

Not even the sea turtles were safe

National Monuments.
. Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) offered an amendment
to a bill that would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from enforcing a rule that prohibits fishermen from snaring

The league credited the Senate and the

Obama Administration for batting down many of the most appalling affronts to the environment, but a few slipped through.
What is striking in the data is how starkly the scores fell along party lines.
the endangered reptiles in their nets. (The amendment was later dropped.)

House Democrats had an average score of 82, while their Senate counterparts scored 89. House Republicans had a score of 10, while GOP
Senators' average was 17. League of Conservation Voters 2012 Scores By Party The divide is also reflected in the scores of party leadership.
Democrats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin were both deemed environmental champions by LCV with perfect
scores of 100, while Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Jon Kyl both had dismal scores of 7, only voting for
two eco-friendly measures that also concerned subsidies for farmers. In the House, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi scored 94 and
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer scored 91 for their attempts to stem the deluge of environmentally corrosive laws. Republican Majority Leader Eric
Cantor scored 3, voting against or abstaining on everything except flood insurance reform, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy scored 6, voting
against the protection of the water supply in his home state of California. (Speaker of the House John Boehner got a pass because the speaker

These issues have traditionally been bipartisan," Jeff

Now members of Congress are standing up
for the polluter agenda over the desires of their constituents. It's been taken to a whole
new level in terms of the extreme leadership in the Republican Party
in the House. They've cemented their position as the worst House
ever in the face of historic extreme weather all across the country."
votes at his own discretion.) "

Gohringer, spokesperson for the League, said. "

Environment Arctic
Arctic environmental policy costs capital its viewed as a
climate change issue
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American
Security Project, a non-partisan national security think tank 9-26- 2013
America is failing to meet challenges of a changing Arctic
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic DA: 6/7/14
Americas Arctic
made it difficult
Sea ice is melting quicker

, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness

for us to take advantage of the vast resources and enormous opportunity of the region. Today,

region in the world.

the Arctic

have

is changing faster than any other

and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so

it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,
Russia will certainly set the standards. The United States has not fully claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law because the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea
Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor
beneath the North Pole. They are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the
Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today,
neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the
surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an
extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could
cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in
the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President

because of the political paralysis on climate

it is impossible to have a rational debate
large portion of our political system refuses to
acknowledge the very existence
we will not be
able to make the investments
to take advantage of
Arctic
Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence. Perhaps it is

policy in

Congress and in state governments that

about the impacts of

climate change. So long as a

climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska,

necessary

a changing

Marine Protected Areas

Link Marine Protected Areas General

MPAs cause controversy GOP House opposition
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in
the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected
areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful
in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with the misuse of the former and

has been extremely difficult to bring any

rationality into the debate on the application and siting of marine protected areas. Instead they've become a cash
the unknown application of the latter. It

cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns, whether or not there is any need or
the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male
enhancement pills -- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of
marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine
reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and you can kiss

new national monuments

would be carefully scrutinized by the new Congress is welcome. This should
help to slow the process down. The one downside is that the new House is less likely to want to tackle pollution and water
off any kind of measured, rational discussion. The announcement then (see below) that

quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already
designated areas protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil
spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address

The new House leadership will also

slow down the rush to "marine spatial planning

water quality issues affecting MPAs. So what's the difference here?

likely
." A two-year slow down to allow for a
more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that

implementation of spatial planning getting held up in the House Resources

Committee could then lead to off-the-Hill discussions among the various interest groups (fishing, conservation, maritime) to forge
an acceptable policy. In the House there is, or should be, concern from the fishing industry about the
leadership's closeness with Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Development, Big
Pharma and Big Insurance. On the other hand, they don't owe Big Green anything.

MPA creation cause fights fishing lobbies and

jurisdictional confusion
Bruce Barcott is an environmental journalist whose articles have appeared
in Outside Magazine, National Geographic, The New York Times Magazine,
and OnEarth magazine, 6-6-2011 The Unfulfilled Promise of the Worlds
Marine Protected Areas
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/fulfilling_the_great_promise_of_worlds_marine_pr
otected_areas/2416/ DA: 6/6/14 **edited for gendered language
marine reserves

In fact theres new evidence that the

are helping to replenish the open areas hit hard by the yellow tang
divers. In a paper published in the December 2010 issue of PLoS One, Tissot showed that larvae from fish spawning inside the marine reserve
were floating outside the reserve, effectively seeding areas up to 100 kilometers away. This is the first time that larval dispersal has been
shown to be one of the mechanisms underlying what we call the seeding effect of marine reserves, said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State
University marine ecologist and former chair of NOAAs Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee, who was one of Tissots coauthors. Populations build up inside the reserves, those fish spawn, and their larvae drift out and rain down on fished areas outside the
reserves. His research, Tissot said, sends a strong message about marine reserves. These things are really working. But if they work so

arent more being created? The short answer is that fishers, in general, hate them. Or at
best they distrust them. Marine reserves are usually set up in the most welcoming fish habitat, which anglers, of
well, why

course, consider the best fishing spots. But scientists and conservationists point out that unless more marine reserves are established, there

Fishers can be powerful political players

will soon be no fishing spots.

. Fishing closures are unlikely
to be adopted in areas of highly valuable commercial fishing or those near large fishing-dependent populations, Jay Nelson, director of Pews
Oceans Legacy campaign, wrote last year. Therefore, the most feasible sites are in remote areas that for various reasons have not yet been
the target of large-scale commercial fishing or other extractive activities. In the U.S., a number of states are considering establishing new
marine reserves, spurred on by an increased awareness of the oceans plight and the recent green energy rush to industrialize offshore wind
and wave power sites. California is in the final stages of a decade-long redesign of its marine protected areas system. In Oregon, the state has
established two very small marine reserves that it labels pilot projects, and three other potential reserve sites are under consideration.
Bernie Bjork, a retired commercial fisherman from Astoria, Oregon, who spent the past year fighting over one of the reserves, sees the
creation of a marine reserve as one more nail in the coffin of Oregons commercial fishing fleet. Since 1999, 80 percent of the trawl fleets
fishing grounds off the coast of Oregon and Washington have been closed down, he told me. Hes not an unreasonable guy. A few years ago
he worked with Environmental Defense to help establish quota systems on the West Coast. But the politics of the whole process frustrated
him. They said theyd allow boats to come in, but you cant fish. And then they said the crabbers could come in, but not the trawlers. Theyre

When it
comes to marine reserves, everything is negotiable, and confusion is common. There
are few clear hard-and-fast rules as there are with terrestrial wilderness designations, partly
because the ocean is so much more dynamic and complex, and partly because theres no
congressional act establishing marine reserves as there is for federally protected wilderness. While the designations given to marine
protected areas ecosystem reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine reserves, marine monuments may be terms of art to
bureaucrats, to the rest of us theyre confusing and alienating.
going to use adaptive management, which means they can change the rules at any time. It really got confusing.

MPA designation causes controversy significant Navy

and fisher opposition

Christopher Pala, journalist

Reports on Central Asia, the oceans, climate change, the boreal forest and
the North Pole, 2-10-2009 Will Obama Expand the No-Take Pacific Fishing
Zones? http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=6663 DA
6/6/14
environmentalists say the time to create marine no-take areas is
now
Many

, before these fleets start increasing their fishing effort in the Pacific. Bushs latest reserves in the Central Pacific include the islands of Howland, Baker, Palmyra, Johnston, Jarvis, Wake and Kingman

Reef, making up the 215,000 sq km Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, along with the 35,000 sq km Rose Island Marine National Monument, just east of Pago Pago. In the Western Pacific, it involves a
small area around the northern-most Mariana Islands.

If Obama
the

administration

extends the monuments

to the full EEZs, marine biologists like

Steve Gaines say that added to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area and the Nauru Agreement no-take pockets of international waters, the measure could have some effect on the tuna stocks that provide income for
many Pacific nations. Usually the effect of marine protected areas on fish like tuna that travel all over the ocean is marginal, says Gaines, an authority on marine reserves who heads the Marine Science Institute at
the University of California at Santa Barbara. But if these multiple reserves are big enough, you could see increases in their populations. John Hampton, the Oceanic Fisheries Program Manager at the Secretariat of
the Pacific community, says that to be effective, marine protected areas need to go in tandem with reduced fishing outside those areas if the actual catch is to be reducedsomething that the Nauru Agreement

the most significant

came from the US Navy

accomplishes by restricting fishing in the EEZs of its members as its bans its licensees from fishing in the high-seas pockets. Ironically,

opposition

to extending the monuments to the full EEZs of the 11 islands had nothing to do with fishing: it

. Even

though Bush specified in a memorandum last August that the monument designation should not limit the department of defense from carrying out its mission in the Pacific, senior Pentagon officials expressed
concern that it could lead to future restrictions on their ability to carry out their tasks. They cited lawsuits restricting the use of active sonar, which injures whales and dolphins that arose from Bushs designation of
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument two years ago. Without the Navy, I think the monuments would have been a lot bigger, said one environmentalist.

opposition from
to ban
fishing

recreational

recreational

fishers Eight organizations

.

Then came
urged Bush not

representing them

in any of the monuments, even though virtually none is taking place there or is likely to take place there in the foreseeable future because of their remote

locationswith the exception of Palmyra, which hosts a few dozen fishermen a year. We do not support any unnecessary closures to recreational fishing unless there is a scientific determination that shows
recreational fishing is harming the ecosystem, said Patty Doerr of the American Sportfishing Association. She added that the only way for a closure to be justified in the Pacific areas would be for recreational fishing
to be introduced and for it to demonstrably harm the environment. The new set of closed areas will have little immediate effect: Hawaiis 123 long-liners were spending less than 5 percent of their time there, NOAA

aggressive pushback from

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management

figures show, and the waters off the northernmost Marianas, which have few tuna, are not fished at all. But that did not prevent
Pacific marine conservationists old nemesis,

Council

, a federal agency whose executive director, Kitty Simonds, has fought restrictions on fishing for three decades. Wespac is tasked with protecting the interests of fishing companies as well as

insuring that these interests dont reduce fish stocks, but it has presided over the rapid collapse of lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a steep decline in the fish stocks of the Main Hawaiian
Islands. It has even encouraged the issuance of commercial bottom-fishing and lobster-fishing permits in the National Wildlife Refuges of Baker, Howland, Kingman, Jarvis, Johnston and Palmyra, in violation of
federal laws, says Jim Maragos, a veteran Fish and Wildlife Service scientist. In Saipan, where tourism and the garment industry are in free-fall, a pro-monument petition attracted 6000 signatures and the Hotel
Association and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed turning the waters around the three northernmost islandsMaug, Asuncion and Uracusinto a marine national monument. Almost no one is able to enjoy
these islands at this time, wrote Lynn Knight, chairwoman of the association, in a letter to Bush, while monument status would boost the local economy in promoting ecotourism. In contrast, the governor and
most of the legislature have voiced their opposition to what they call The Pew Monument in language that strikingly resembles Wespacs. The opposition was led by Wespac in every regard, said Rick Gaffney, a
former Wespac council member. Without Wespac, added Andrew Salas, a former Marianas legislator, the opposition would have been minimal. There would have been a bit of grumbling because relations
between the Marianas government and the federal government are pretty bad these days, but thats it, because the overwhelming majority of the people support the monument. Wespac is under investigation by
the US General Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department for suspected illegal lobbying. In a letter to Bush that received wide publicity in Saipan, Aha Kiole, an organisation
essentially created by Wespac to prevent marine reserves from being created in Hawaii, accused the president of having created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands reserve without the participation of the Native
Hawaiian people, all of whom feel anger, trepidation and despair whenever the monument is mentioned. Although more than 100 hearings were held on the issue over six years, the letter asserts that most
Hawaiians did not know that the Pew Foundation was planning to take three-fourths of Hawaiian lands and make it into a monument. (In fact, the total land area of the ten-islet monument is 13 sq km, while the
rest of Hawaii totals 16,635sq km). The Marianas monument, the letter continued, will take an integral part of the Marianas culture away from the native peoplewith no hope of ever getting this part of their
heritage back. Like all federal agencies, Wespac is barred from spending federal funds to lobby the legislative branches of state and federal government. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department are currently both investigating allegations that Wespac lobbied the US Congress and the Hawaii legislature to push its pro-fishing, anticonservation agenda, notably in creating Aha Kiole. In Saipan, much of the political elite has ties to Wespac. The governors chief of staff, Ray Mafnas, is a senior, unsalaried Wespac official who collects over US$600
a day every time he travels for Wespac. Arnold Palacios, Speaker of the House, is a former member of the Wespac council. He wrote in a letter to Bush that the loss of control over such a vast area of land and water
is an assault on the traditions and culture of the islands. The representative Speaker Palacios appointed as chairman of the House Federal Relations Committee, Representative Diego Benavente, is a former
lieutenant governor who is running for governor. He engineered the approval of two He was president of the Saipan Fishermens Association in 2005 when it got a US$150,000 grant from Wespac to rent and equip a
store to sell its members catch. But this past December, the Marianas Variety reported that the store had closed two months after it opened because of unexpected expenses like utilities, rent, and salaries.
Benavente was quoted as saying: We ran out of money, basically. Valentin Taisakan, the mayor of the Northern Islands Municipality, which lies south of the three islands designated as a monument by Bush in
January, also wrote to Bush in opposition to the monument. Taisakan, who lives in Saipan, received a US$90,000 Wespac grant to create a fishing base in his remote municipality, but the base never opened,
according to Saipan sources. In another letter to Bush opposing the designation, Juan Borja Tudela, the mayor of Saipan, where most of the Marianas 65,000 people live, said the monument waters should be left
under the control of Wespac, which he called much more sensitive to the Pacific Islanders way of life. Wespacs vice-chairman, Manny Duenas, head of a fishermens group in Guam, went further in his own letter

The
result of all this opposition,
was a
reserve truncated into three segments all falling far short of
the goals
to Bush. The taking of our marine resources may be construed as being no different than cattle rustling and it would serve as a springboard to ensure the cultural genocide of a people, he wrote.
and of negotiations between James Connaughton, Bushs environmental adviser, and Gov. Benigno Fitial,

Marianas marine

articulated by its proponents: The Islands Unit around Maug, Asuncion and Uracus is only 42,500 sq km instead of the 300,000 sq km proposed by Lubchenco and Pew; The

Marianas Trench unit is 205,000 sq km, but it only protects the seabed and does not restrict fishing. The trenchs bottom fauna, including bacteria that are the oldest forms of life on earth, depends on rain of
nutrients from the surface area for food. The third component is a collection of 21 volcanic vents spewing bubbles and lava of great scientific interest. But since the area protected for each vent is just over a
square kilometre and some volcanoes have calderas up to 10 km across, the protection appears to be meaningless, specialists say.

Link Marine Protected Areas XO

Obama XOs on MPAs costs capital GOP oppose executive
overreach
Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times, 12-20-2012 Huge expansion of U.S.
protection for N. Calif. waters proposed
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/20/local/la-me-marine-sanctuaries20121221 DA: 6/6/14

California's congressional delegation lobbied President Obama to use the

power of his office to expand these sanctuaries' boundaries by
declaring them national monuments. The American Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president
Last month,

such powers. President George W. Bush, impatient with government procedures, invoked the Antiquities Act to create the
nation's largest marine protected areas, surrounding the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Northern Marianas Islands.

congressional Republicans didn't challenge Bush, they have repeatedly

warned the Obama administration against such a tactic particularly those lawmakers still
fuming over President Clinton's designation of Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument and others in his final days of office.
Although

Research Funding

Link Oceanographic Research

Oceanographic research funding costs PC Obama
pushes, spending causes intense opposition and pushes
off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime
Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budge
t+Outlook+for+Maritime+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request
arrived
in the midst of
budget
by the House

for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this

year. The President's budget

in Congress

passed

two

very different views of the

of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective

appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten
years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget
request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly
70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas,
including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime
Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program;
$81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of
managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference
cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or
5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast
Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded
under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated
National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for consolidating the grants into one block
grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA,

requested

the President

has

a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the

National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186

an increase of $21
oceanographic research
The House
is likely to
pass
bills
vastly different from the White House's request
Members
have
questioned whether funding can be provided for the
NOAA
It
also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular
order,
this is not likely to happen in the near term
The government keeps limping along with cuts
from sequester delays in Congressional approval for spending plans,
and uncertainties in the outcome
The House and Senate will
have to debate their respective
visions
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and

million to support

an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's

fleet. Summary The House and Senate

are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
appropriation

of Representatives

that are

. In fact,

of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee,
full

already

Commerce/

budgets.

i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-

MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but

except for defense agencies

where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached.

,

for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are

delayed.

once again

for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a

fight over offsetting budget cuts.

Oceanographic research causes controversy seen as

pork-barrel spending and opposition in Congress to
environmental issues
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2- 2007
US ocean observatories imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA: 6/10/14

radar stations have been providing a rich stream of

data about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to fishermen, mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a
national system that could help with ocean managemen t and save the lives of mariners. But the Gulf
of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) and others like it across the country may not be able to
save themselves. Their federal funding is ending , in part because of congressional
reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel spending. What makes the $4 million-a-year GoMoos
For the past six years, a network of high-tech buoys and

stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in and out of
Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of
the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network
was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that would gather and process oceanographic information and
release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been
established across the United States and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's
oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have been fished into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the
deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to take into account how
marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The
establishment of such a national system was one of the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The
official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have "invaluable economic, societal, and
environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes
for us to get to them, so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C.
"These systems allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen
use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have
grown accustomed to getting detailed information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life
without destroying the ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various
intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to
know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be
pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of

ocean-observing networks are facing the

squeeze

uncertainty." Other
same
. "We do not have
enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C.,

The root problem: Congress

never passed legislation to fund the system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would
have formally established and fund the national system. House versions never came to the floor for a
vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the opposition of then- Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California.
As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often opposed spending on environmental issues . As a result, the oceanwhich has deferred maintenance on its buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured.

observing systems relied on congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of
the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes

It's an inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's

difficult to separate what is worthwhile from what might not be. "
earmarks. "

Whaling

Whaling Controversial
Whaling exemption, including process by which it is
achieved, massively controversial, ensuring debate about
the plan
Kamb, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5
[Lewis, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3-20-5, Makah try long shot: asking
Congress to allow whale hunts, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Makahtry-long-shot-asking-Congress-to-allow-1169021.php, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]
Tribe's whalers await chance to hunt again
Already pursuing an obscure administrative waiver in its struggle to
one day hunt whales again, the Makah Indian Nation is now also
exploring its options on another front: Congress.
During a recent visit to the nation's capital, tribal officials informally raised to
members of Washington's congressional delegation the idea of seeking a bill
to allow an exception for Makah whale hunts.
"We've just talked to them a little at this point," Makah Chairman Ben Johnson
Jr. said last week. "Whether anything will come of it, who knows?"
Such discussions -- still embryonic, at best -- have yet to yield any promises
of support. There is no such bill now, nor any guarantees from lawmakers
that there ever will be one.
In fact, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., already appears to be somewhat
distancing herself from any potential proposal to allow for a tribal
whaling exception.
"It is very unlikely that she would try to use the Senate to force this issue,"
Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman said last week.
The Makah have a whaling tradition that dates back some 2,000 years, but
the tribe suspended its whale hunts in the 1920s -- in part because the
commercial whaling industry had hunted gray whales nearly to extinction.
In 1994, with the mammals' numbers rebounding, the federal government
removed the gray whale from the endangered species list. And the tribe
began taking steps to whale again.
The Makah -- with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration -- eventually won a small annual harvest quota from the
International Whaling Commission. In 1999, tribal whalers successfully
brought in the tribe's first whale in more than 70 years.
Animal protection activists soon sued the tribe and its federal
backers, winning a string of legal victories to stop the hunts.
In its most recent opinion, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
NOAA should have conducted a more stringent environmental analysis before
endorsing the hunts. The court also ruled that, before the tribe can legally
hunt again, it must first seek and win an exception to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
The 1972 federal law generally prohibits anyone in the United States
from harming gray whales or other sea mammals.
The Makah had argued that because they had an explicit right to hunt whales
in their 1855 treaty with the U.S. government, the tribe wasn't subject to the
law.

But the court disagreed. And instead of appealing to the Supreme Court and
risking the chance of setting bad precedent for other tribes, the Makah opted
to comply with the ruling last month by filing an application with NOAA for a
waiver to the law.
Winning such an exception -- a pursuit that could take two years or more of
administrative hearings and paperwork -- has never happened before,
officials say.
While that process moves ahead, the Makah are considering what might
be their only other option: congressional help.
Tribal representatives met individually late last month with Cantwell, Sen.
Patty Murray, D-Wash., and U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., among others, to
discuss the possibility of seeking a whaling exception through federal
legislation.
Alaskan Natives, who don't have treaty rights, are allowed to hunt whales
under an exception that was written into the mammal protection law when it
was enacted more than 30 years ago. So why shouldn't the Makah -- the only
Native American tribe with an express treaty right to whale -- also be exempt
from the law? "We just think it's unfair," said John Arum, the tribe's attorney.
Some opponents of the tribe's hunts actually may prefer that the
Makah receive a whaling exception through Congress rather than
winning one through an administrative process, Arum added. The
latter would be a first-of-its-kind waiver that some opponents have
said could open the doors to others who may want to seek to whale.
But Naomi Rose, a marine mammal biologist for the Humane Society of the
United States -- among the coalition of opponents that sued to stop the
Makah's hunts -- said either scenario is unacceptable.
"For us, it's a real simple equation: We do not want them hunting gray whales
again, period," she said.
The animal protection group has since voiced its concerns to
Washington's congressional delegation over any potential tribal
whaling bill -- even though activists foresee the tribe's legislative
prospects to be unlikely.
"To get an amendment to the law like that passed, you have to have
an awful lot of friends on the Hill," Rose said. "We don't think they
have enough."

Development

Aquaculture Unpopular
Plan-Specific Link: Aquaculture [1/1]
( ) The plans unpopular with likely voters they ignore the economic
benefits of aquaculture and focus only on environmental drawbacks
Knapp 2011
[Gunnar. Prof Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research. The Political
Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture March 2011
https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf] we do not endorse the genered
language in this card

Many Americans perceive potential negative effects of marine aquaculture without

offsetting positive effects: A variety of groups of Americans perceive potential
negative effects of marine aquaculture. These include: Commercial fisher(s)men, who
fear economic competition and environmental damage to wild fish stocks. Coastal
residents, who fear loss of access to waterfront and changes in the views they enjoy.
Environmentalists, who worry variously that marine aquaculture will cause pollution,
harm marine ecosystems, or increase pressure on global wild fish stocks harvested
for production of fishmeal and fish oil used in fish feeds. These groups play
significant roles in the politics of United States marine aquaculture , across the political
and regulatory process at local, state, and national levels. For example, Alaska salmon fishermen
spearheaded the Alaska legislatures 1990 ban on finfish farming, and continue to vocally oppose
aquaculture development in federal waters nationwide, along with Alaskas congressional delegation
(Figure 4). Similarly, coastal residents have strongly and effectively opposed marine
aquaculture in states such as Maine and Washington. Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of
the Maine Aquaculture Association, described the political challenges facing aquaculture as a result of
demographic shifts in coastal regions: In Mainepart of the application process for the series of
permits and licenses needed to operate in the marine environment is an exhaustive series of meetings
with the general public and all stakeholde. Part of the constituency will not like what you do, whatever you
do. [Because of] a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees from other states, as summer-home
visitors to our beautiful coast became year-round residents, coastal communities now view the

ocean for recreational use, and commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must
make their case locally to people who have no history or link with the ocean for
making a living (Thomas, 2011). These groups opposition is vexing and frustrating to marine

aquaculture supporters who feel that the objections and fears of aquaculture opponents are exaggerated,
unfounded, or simply irrational. How do you argue with people who without any scientific

basis believe that marine aquaculture will destroy commercial fisheries? How do
you argue with people who claim that fish farms that will be barely visible will destroy
their coastal view? How do you argue with people who appear to be unwilling to
accept any level of risk or change?

Aquaculture Unpopular
Environmental lobby drowns out support for aquaculturepeople who should support it dont
Seafood News 2007 [Seafood News July 16, 2007 The big mistake

environmentalists are making on aquaculture

http://seafood.typepad.com/the_winding_glass/2007/07/the-big-mistake.html]
Environmentalists have the power to kill this bill . The fact is the
offshore aquaculture bill is enabling legislation -- it would create conditions for
an industry to develop. IN this context, there is no huge pressure group
lobbying for this to happen. In fact the opposite-- many fishermen
don't care, and in some areas, such as Alaska, they are passionately
opposed. So, we have the powerful environmental lobby lined up
against .........no one. NOAA has indicated much willingness to build in environmental
safeguards in the permitting process. But there has to be a permitting process to begin with. Unless the
regulations are practical, no one will ever invest in offshore aquaculture, as NFI's president Jeff Davis keeps

environmentalists have the power to either kill off the bill

completely, or make it worthless, by going for the long ball -- their maximum demands. Like the give
saying. So, here the

swordfish a break campaign, the ones likely to be hurt by this are American consumers and the

environmental groups
are opposed to everything but closed land based system
aquaculture, they should say so, but not be taken seriously on this bill. For the rest, who see a long
environmentally responsible aquaculture companies, like Kona Blue. If

term future in Aquaculture, a responsible compromise today to get a workable bill will yield long term
results tomorrow.

Strong oppostition to aquaculture

Boutilier 2012 [Alex Boutilier Metro Halifax June 4 2012 Conservation
groups unite in opposition to aquaculture strategy
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/249894/conservation-groups-unite-inopposition-to-aquaculture-strategy/]
Over 100 conservation groups and commercial fisheries
organizations came together in Halifax on Monday to voice their concerns
about Nova Scotias new aquaculture strategy. About 250 people filled a conference room at the
Lord Nelson hotel Monday to call on the government to impose a three year moratorium on open-net pen
fish farming. Premier Darrell Dexter, we have a message for you today: You do not have permission to do
this, said Raymond Plourde with the Ecology Action Centre. We elect (a government) to provide good
governance. Wise, considered decision making. We do not elect them to provide ham-fisted autocracy and
decisions by royal proclamation that the serfs and vassals of the province must live with. Plourde and

presenters detailed a number of concerns about fish farming,

including increased waste dumped into the ocean and the use of
potentially harmful pesticides. The topic made headlines recently
after a number of pen-raised salmon had to be destroyed due to an
outbreak of infectious salmon anemia in the Shelburne area. We said, look, just like
other

we said, all these problems and viruses! What does (Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Sterling Belliveau)
say? He says to me,

its just another normal day in aquaculture, said Plourde.

Significant opposition to marine aquaculture

Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]
Many Americans perceive potential negative effects of marine aquaculture without offsetting positive

A variety of groups of Americans perceive potential negative

effects of marine aquaculture. These include: Commercial
fishermen, who fear economic competition and environmental
effects:

damage to wild fish stocks. Coastal residents, who fear loss of access to
waterfront and changes in the views they enjoy. Environmentalists,
who worry variously that marine aquaculture will cause pollution,
harm marine ecosystems, or increase pressure on global wild fish
stocks harvested for production of fishmeal and fish oil used in fish feeds. These groups
play significant roles in the politics of United States marine
aquaculture, across the political and regulatory process at local, state,
and national levels. For example, Alaska salmon fishermen spearheaded
the Alaska legislatures 1990 ban on finfish farming, and continue
to vocally oppose aquaculture development in federal waters nationwide, along
with Alaskas congressional delegation (Figure 4). Similarly, coastal residents have
strongly and effectively opposed marine aquaculture in states
such as Maine and Washington. Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of the Maine
Aquaculture Association, described the political challenges facing aquaculture as a result of
demographic shifts in coastal regions: In Mainepart of the application process for the series of
permits and licenses needed to operate in the marine environment is an exhaustive series of meetings
with the general public and all stakeholde. Part of the constituency will not like what you do, whatever
you do. [Because of] a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees from other states, as summerhome visitors to our beautiful coast became year-round residents, coastal communities now view the
ocean for recreational use, and commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must make their case locally
to people who have no history or link with the ocean for making a living (Thomas, 2011).

Opposition outweighs support due to the small nature of

the industry
Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]

being new and small also raises political challenges for U.S.
marine aquaculture. Because it is new and small, it is harder to
demonstrate the benefits and easier to exaggerate the risks of
marine aquaculture (Figure 3). As noted by Tiersch and Hargreaves (2002), new
resource industries such as aquaculture face a different political
playing field than older resource industries such as logging:A core concept of
But

the environmental movement is the precautionary principle, which basically states that it is wise to
avoid unnecessary risk This principle is biased towards slowing or stopping the development of new
of proof from environmental advocates to practitioners such that new
activities, like aquaculture, must show that they will not be a
problem in the future. This is in contrast to the situation for
established industries detractors must prove that the
established industry presents a problem. Of course, newer industries
also lack the financial and political resources of groups such as
logging, mining and petroleum extraction interests and large chemical

activities, and shifts the burden

corporations. It is easier to restrict or stop aquaculture projects, despite their much smaller
environmental risk than it is to attempt to control more damaging established activities. Thus

opposing aquaculture development is viewed by advocacy groups

as applying an ounce of prevention now instead of the pound of cure that would

be required later. To overcome the political challenges it faces, U.S. marine aquaculture will need
committed supporters at all levels of the political and policy process. It will need fish farmers and
employees who tell their friends and neighbors and elected officials about the benefits of aquaculture. It
will need supporters who will testify at local public meetings, write letters to the editor, and are elected
to local, state, and federal office. It will need organized lobbying efforts to influence state and federal
All of this takes committed people and money. Because U.S.
marine aquaculture is new and small, relatively few Americans
have or realize they have a direct stake in it. That means that
it has fewer committed supporters, with less money and less

agencies and politicians.

political influence. In much of the United States marine aquaculture is still below a political
threshold scale necessary for people to understand, accept, and effectively advocate for marine
aquaculture. Achieving this scale will be critical to overcoming political challenges. Marine aquaculture
will become politically stronger as it grows but it is difficult for it to grow without being politically
stronger.

Philosophical resistance of Americans to ownership of

public goods
Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]

The tradition that marine fish and waters are public resources
imposes an extra political and regulatory hurdle for the development of
aquaculture, especially for finfish farming. Before any kind of marine
aquaculture can begin, new mechanisms need to be created to
allow for exclusive use of marine waters. Efforts to implement
rights-based management regimes for wild fisheries, such as individual
fishing quotas, face similar strong philosophical resistance from many
Americans. However, as these new management regimes are implemented, public attitudes are
likely to shift as the economic logic and advantages of exclusive use rights become more
same process will likely occur with marine aquaculture but it will take time.

apparent. The

You cant sway people- attempts to spin the plan in a

positive light are overwhelmed
Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]

These groups opposition is vexing and frustrating to marine

aquaculture supporters who feel that the objections and fears of
aquaculture opponents are exaggerated, unfounded, or simply irrational. How
do you argue with people who without any scientific basis
believe that marine aquaculture will destroy commercial fisheries ?
How do you argue with people who claim that fish farms that will
be barely visible will destroy their coastal view? How do you argue with
people who appear to be unwilling to accept any level of risk or change? The political
reality is that it is rational for groups which perceive only negative
potential effects of marine aquaculture to oppose it. Why accept
any risk if there is nothing to be gained?

Powerful NGOs oppose it to and affect the public debate

Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]
opposed U.S. marine aquaculture: Numerous U.S.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have invested significant
funding and effort to advocate banning, delaying, restricting, or
regulating U.S. marine aquaculture in ways that increase the risks and costs of
investment. Collectively these organizations have played a major role in
influencing the public, the press, politicians, and regulators in ways

NGOs have systematically and effectively

which have contributed to unfavorable leasing

and regulatory policies towards marine aquaculture.

NGOs that have funded or engaged in significant advocacy to

influence U.S. marine aquaculture policies include the Packard
Foundation, the Moore Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts,

Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, Food and Water

Watch, and others, both large and small. The scale, objectives, strategies, and arguments of these
groups vary widely, making it difficult to generalize about their motives, methods, and effects. All of
these organizations would assert that they use rational and science-based arguments to advocate for
the public interest. Marine aquaculture supporters would argue that the NGOs engaged in aquaculture
advocacy range from responsible to grossly irresponsible and that they pursue strategies ranging from
ethical to grossly unethical. As noted by Tiersch and Hargreaves (2002), Advocacy groups can provide
a valuable service by acting as an impartial watchdog of environmental issues and calling attention to

a very real and frustrating challenge for

marine aquaculture supporters is that some NGOs appear willing to
say anything to oppose marine aquaculture, with casual and
sometimes blatant disregard for objectivity, truth, or the complex
reality of what experience and science have shown about the hugely varied
legitimate concerns.

However,

effects of the hugely varied kinds of activities collectively known as aquaculture. Here, for example is a
statement posted on the website of the NGO Food and Water Watch:Many fish-lovers would be horrified
to learn that huge quantities of fish and shrimp are now being grown in giant nets, cages, and ponds
where antibiotics, hormones and pesticides mingle with disease and waste. These industrialized
aquaculture facilities are rapidly replacing natural methods of fishing that have been used to catch
millennia. It is difficult for people in industry,
government or science to refute these kinds of arguments when
they are held to much higher standards of argument and evidence.

fresh, wild seafood for

Science media has biased people against it

Knapp 2012 [Gunnar Knapp Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 5163, 2012 https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf]

A familiar and frustrating experience for marine aquaculture

supporters is the appearance in respected scientific journals, such
as Science and Nature, of articles of questionable scientific validity
or objectivity that claim to demonstrate negative effects of marine
aquaculture such as environmental damage or health risks of aquaculture products (Naylor et
al., 2000; Hites et al., 2004). In some cases the research was funded by NGOs
with the specific stated objective of demonstrating negative
effects as opposed to objectively examining the evidence for such effects (Krause, 2010a; b;
Krause, 2011a; b). These articles then receive extensive attention in the
popular press often ensured by planned publicity campaigns of
the sponsoring NGOs. The other side of the story objective scientific review
and critiques of the research methodology and conclusions is rarely heard. It is rarely heard
in the review processes of

the scientific journals. It is rarely heard in the pages

of scientific journals,

It is rarely heard in the popular press,

which is less interested in the other side of the story because its
more confusing and nuanced and is less interesting and because
marine aquaculture supporters have no organized, planned
publicity campaign to tell the other side of the story. Put simply, both
scientific and press articles are easier to publish and get more
attention if they indicate that aquaculture is bad than if they
suggest that the studies that say aquaculture is bad are flawed.
With the public, politicians, and regulators facing a relentless
barrage of negative messages from NGOs and the scientific and popular press, fish
farmers face an uphill political battle (Figure 5).
which rarely publish rebuttal

articles.

Some are hesitant about aquaculture because of its use of

antibiotics.
Food & Water Watch, March 15, 2006, "Factory Fish Farming"
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/
Many fish-lovers would be horrified to learn that huge quantities of
fish and shrimp are now being grown in giant nets, cages, and ponds
where antibiotics, hormones and pesticides mingle with disease and
waste. These industrialized aquaculture facilities are rapidly
replacing natural methods of fishing that have been used to catch
fresh, wild seafood for millennia. From all-you-can-eat popcorn shrimp at
chain restaurants, to bite-sized maki rolls at trendy sushi bars, to salmon steaks on
the backyard barbecue Americans eat 25 percent more seafood than they did 20
years ago, an average of 16 pounds a year.

Fishermen, Costal Residents, and Environmentalists are

Strongly Against Aquaculture.
PanoramaAcuicola,1/9/13, "The Political Economics of United States Marine
Aquaculture"
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/interviews_and_articles/2013/01/09/the_political_economics_of_united_s
tates_marine_aquaculture.html

A variety of groups of Americans perceive potential negative effects

of marine aquaculture. These include commercial fishermen, coastal
residents, and environmentalists. These groups play significant roles in
the politics of United States marine aquaculture, across the political and
regulatory process at local, state, and national levels. For example, Alaska
salmon fishermen spearheaded the Alaska legislatures 1990 ban on
finfish farming, and continue to vocally oppose aquaculture
development in federal waters nation wide, along with Alaskas
congressional delegation. Similarly, coastal residents have strongly and
effectively opposed marine aquaculture in states such as Maine and
Washington. Part of the application process for the series of permits
and licenses needed to operate in the marine environment is an
exhaustive series of meetings with the general public and all stake
holders. Because of a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees
from other states, as summer-home visitors became year-round residents,
coastal communities now view the ocean for recreational use, and
commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must make their case locally to
people who have no history or link with the ocean for making a living. It is
rational for groups which perceive only negative potential effects of marine

aquaculture to oppose it. Clearly there are many things to be gained from
marine aquaculture; such as stable jobs, tax revenues, and synergies with
other marine industries. But, in many areas, aquaculture supporters have
failed to make the case effectively that aquaculture has these positive
potential benefits.

Aquaculture Controversial
Aquaculture is politically unpopularempirically prove
Fry, Commercial Fisher, 13
[Christy, 2/26/13, Homer News; Republished on the website of Congressman
Don Young, Young Introduces Aquaculture Bill ,

http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=322513, accessed 7/8/14, AC]
Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that
would prohibit the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture
operations in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone, from 3 to 200 miles
from shore, unless specifically authorized by Congress.
"If not properly managed, farmed fish can be a significant threat to
the health of Alaska's wild stocks and the health of our oceans,"
Young said. "Alaska's seafood industry is one of the largest
employers in the state, and today's legislation will preserve
Congress' prerogative to determine what type of aquaculture
programs should and should not be conducted in our waters and
those adjacent to our waters."
Congress has never authorized open ocean aquaculture or provided
a legislative framework for managing finfish farms in the EEZ, in spite
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration drawing up a 10-year
plan in 2007 that had stated goals such as "By the end of 2007, develop
policies, guidelines and protocols for use in the review of proposed marine
aquaculture facilities by NOAA regional and program offices under current
NOAA mandates."
The most recent activity on the NOAA aquaculture website involves funding
opportunities for creating biofuels from algea:
"As part of the Energy Department's efforts to develop transportation fuels
that don't rely on petroleum, they announced on January 16 up to $10 million
available this year to help unlock the potential of biofuels made from algae.
The funding will support projects aimed at boosting the productivity of algae
and increasing the efficiency of algae harvesting technologies."
NOAA drew fire from commercial fishermen when it began
aggressively promoting aquaculture in federal waters, saying that
spending taxpayer dollars to create a system that would lower prices
for wild-caught products was inherently unfair.
However, the spotty nature of the project appears to have
diminished the immediate threat. Three separate bills submitted to
Congress in 2004, 2007 and 2009 failed to produce the regulatory
framework, failing to even move out of committee.
NOAA says that it has a commitment to developing sustainable aquaculture,
although its definition of "sustainable" is not found in any of its literature.

1NC- Aquaculture
Aquaculture expansion is a hot-button issue- political
firestorm
Hedlund 10 (Stephanie Hedlund, Seafood Source, Online Ocean Website,
Can open-ocean aquaculture reach its potential?,
http://www.seafoodsource.com/en/news/aquaculture/13719-can-open-oceanaquaculture-reach-its-potential, March 3, 2010)
The challenges facing open-ocean aquaculture and the industrys
potential for growth was a hot-button issue at the World
Aquaculture Societys Aquaculture 2010 conference in San Diego on
Wednesday. In U.S. waters, perhaps the two biggest obstacles are
the lack of a regulatory framework and opposition from
environmental NGOs. Neil Sims, co-founder and president of Kona Blue Water Farms, which
raises Kona Kampachi, a Hawaiian yellowtail, off Hawaiis Big Island, called on conference participants to
become not just advocates but also activists. There are more than 20,000 marine species, said Sims.
We have barely begun to scratch the surface. We should not be weighed down by the concerns of those
who have focused exclusively on Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We should be viewing these
issues from a global perspective. We should be claiming the moral high ground. Aquaculture is not part of
the problem, he added. We need to promote the wider debate about the future of seafood and the
future of the oceans. This is not a debate between fish farmers and environmentalists. Damn it, I am an
environmentalist. Thats why I got involved in this industry. This is a debate between environmentalists and
preservationist, who would prefer that we do nothing. We need to propagate the message that

The other major

challenge the open-ocean aquaculture industry faces is the lack of a
regulatory framework in U.S. waters.
aquaculture, if done right, is part of the solution. We need to become activists.

2NC- Aquaculture
Causes environmental backlash
BB 5 (Bend Bugle News Reports, Boone pushes Congress to regulate
aquaculture, http://www.bendbugle.com/2005/06/boone-pushes-congress-toregulate-aquaculture/, June 16, 2005)
Boone (D-North Coast) wants the legislature
to vote on urging Congress to regulate the commercial production of
aquacultural products in the open ocean, Boones office announced
Wednesday. The North Coast legislator has introduced a joint memorial, which is a formal
Salem-State Representative Deborah

message to Congress, asking for passage of new federal legislation that requires the National Marine
Fisheries Service to develop regional inventories of waters in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that are
suitable for aquaculture. The legislation, proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAH), would require the designation of such waters to be consistent with preserving the naturally
occurring fish stocks and marine ecosystems that Oregons seafood industry relies on.

Aquaculture is the business of cultivating fish or shellfish, such as

oysters, clams, salmon, and trout, under controlled conditions. We
must take steps now to make certain that aquaculture does not
damage the natural fisheries that so many coastal families rely on
for their livelihoods, Boone said. In other areas of the world, the
naturally occurring marine environment has suffered damage from
certain kinds of aquacultural practices. We cannot let that happen in
Oregon or anywhere else. Damage to natural ecosystems from
open-ocean aquaculture has occurred in Maine, British Columbia,
South Australia, Spain, Chile and other places, Boone said.

Past debates prove

HomerNews 13 (Homer News, Young Introduces Aquaculture Bill,

http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=322513,
February 26, 2013)
Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that
would prohibit the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture
operations in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone, from 3 to 200 miles from
shore, unless specifically authorized by Congress. "If not properly managed, farmed
fish can be a significant threat to the health of Alaska's wild stocks
and the health of our oceans," Young said. "Alaska's seafood
industry is one of the largest employers in the state, and today's
legislation will preserve Congress' prerogative to determine what
type of aquaculture programs should and should not be conducted in
our waters and those adjacent to our waters." Congress has never
authorized open ocean aquaculture or provided a legislative
framework for managing finfish farms in the EEZ, in spite of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration drawing up a 10-year plan in 2007 that had stated goals such as "By the end
of 2007, develop policies, guidelines and protocols for use in the review of proposed marine aquaculture
facilities by NOAA regional and program offices under current NOAA mandates." The most recent activity
on the NOAA aquaculture website involves funding opportunities for creating biofuels from algea: "As part
of the Energy Department's efforts to develop transportation fuels that don't rely on petroleum, they
announced on January 16 up to $10 million available this year to help unlock the potential of biofuels made
from algae. The funding will support projects aimed at boosting the productivity of algae and increasing

NOAA drew fire from commercial

fishermen when it began aggressively promoting aquaculture in
the efficiency of algae harvesting technologies."

federal waters, saying that spending taxpayer dollars to create a

system that would lower prices for wild-caught products was
inherently unfair. However, the spotty nature of the project appears
to have diminished the immediate threat. Three separate bills
submitted to Congress in 2004, 2007 and 2009 failed to produce the
regulatory framework, failing to even move out of committee . NOAA
says that it has a commitment to developing sustainable aquaculture, although its definition of
"sustainable" is not found in any of its literature.

No risk of link turn- aquaculture lobbies weak in DC

Stewart 14 (Jeanine Stewart, Under Current News, US aquaculture

industry lacks Washington presence, needs lobbyist,

http://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/02/12/us-aquaculture-industry-lackswashington-presence-needs-lobbyist/, February 12, 2014)
The US aquaculture industry despite being a source of innovation
for aquaculture around the world has no lobbyist in Washington
D.C., according to panelists and audience members at the Aquaculture
America conference in Seattle who spoke out during Mondays session on
how to grow the aquaculture industry in the United States. This problem
has many spokes, considering it means US congress is nearly blind
to the multifarious political problems aquaculture industry deals
with, from taxation to permitting problems, sources said. We need
an aquaculture lobbyist, George Lockwood, former World
Aquaculture Society president told the audience. He suggested
seeking funding from large aquaculture players such as Tyson, which
supplies feed ingredients to the industry. Steve Hart, executive director
of the Soy Aquaculture Alliance, agrees whole-heartedly. The SAA has full
time lobbyists in Washington D.C., but they only deal with aquaculture issues
related to soybeans, and he notes there is a huge dearth of knowledge
on aquaculture issues among congressional representatives . We talk
to the congressional reps, and we mention aquaculture issues, and they say,
thats really interesting weve never heard about this before, he told
Undercurrent. Almost everyone we talk to is incredibly interested in
aquaculture; theyre just not hearing it enough. He urges people to write
their congresspeople to tell them what needs to happen to get aquaculture
moving in the United States. Otherwise, he said, they do not know. The
problem is broad-reaching, he suggested. The aquaculture industry
deals with tough business hurdles, most significantly the difficult
permitting process, in addition to public perception challenges. Frank
Asche, a well-known marine economist at the University of Stavanger in
Norway, suggests the regulatory environment is preventing the industry from
exploiting what would otherwise be a great business opportunity. The
regulatory maze basically ensures that state of the art technology is not used
in the United States, Asche told the audience. Therefore you are lagging
behindYou have the best conditions, both from the production point of view
and from a market perspective. Yet the regulators themselves arent in
the position to make changes to the actual regulatory process it is
congress that must change that process, Hart said.

Link Aquaculture
Aquaculture development contentious definition and
jurisdiction controversies
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of

the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which defines fishing as harvesting, also applies to offshore
aquaculture, Bunsick of NOAA says. That definition has been an ongoing source of
contention: Many environmental groups contend that harvesting fish from offshore
farms is vastly different from fishing and should be subject to different regulatory
requirements. Although aquaculture so far is not big business in the United States, deepwater fish farms could have significantly greater
capacity, providing potentially tens of thousands more tons of seafood per year to increasingly health-conscious U.S. consumers. Stakeholders

despite a growing interest in offshore aquaculture,

there is currently no permitting system in place to lease ocean waters for that purpose in large part
because its not clear who should do it. At issue is not just a semantic dispute; tied up in
that definition is who would ultimately manage those offshore
aquaculture operations NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (via the regional councils, or not) or some other
agency. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction over different aspects of offshore aquaculture operation:
across the board find that prospect attractive, but

Because inland and nearshore aquaculture falls under the Department of Agriculture, USDA chairs the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
formed in the 1980s after the National Aquaculture Act passed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue permits for offshore
aquaculture facilities under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Water Act, issues permits for
waste discharge into public waters (which would include waste produced by the fish). And the Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction
over regulating the sale of fish that have been treated for disease.

Aquaculture links confusion over jurisdiction and

environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of

the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
offshore aquaculture

is appealing

The prospect of
in the deeper federal waters
for many reasons. Currently,
the United States imports more than 80 percent of the seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually.
And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States originated in aquaculture farms, not in

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council, one of the eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, developed its own plan
to lease parcels of federal waters in the Gulf to large-scale commercial fish farms. The general
the wild. That trade imbalance has raised economic and food security concerns. In 2003,

consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the
regional councils to manage the industry. This process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish

The Gulf Councils plan

became mired in years of public hearings and protests as
environmental groups worried over potential flaws in the plan and
challenged the councils authority to lease federal waters. There were
more public hearings than have ever been held for a plan before ,
species were working with are subtropical salmon farming is not the same as farming red drum.

Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a

lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, Durged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over

necessary step to become law. Meanwhile,

W.Va.,

proper authority and environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February
2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot ocean space to a growing list of industries.

LOST Unpopular

GOP Opposition
Huge Republican opposition past rallies against prove
Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for President George
W. Bush, 12

[Marc A., writer for The Post and former chief speechwriter to President
George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a former
senior aide to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, 716-12, Washington Post, Portman, Ayotte kill the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/portman-ayotte-killthe-law-of-the-sea-treaty/2012/07/16/gJQADpJEpW_blog.html, accessed 7-914, AAZ]
Conservatives have long opposed the U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea Treaty (LOST). The treaty would create a new global
governance institution (known ominously as The Authority) that would
regulate U.S. citizens and American businesses without being
accountable to the American people or their elected leaders.
During the Clinton administration, my old boss, the late former Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, declared the treaty
dead on arrival. But with the arrival of the Obama administration, and
with Democrats in control of the Senate, there has been a renewed push
to ratify the treaty.
Those efforts suffered a setback last week when Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would oppose ratification.
That meant 32 Senate Republicans had either publicly opposed, or
signed letters declaring their intention to vote against , the Law of the
Sea Treaty. Opponents needed just two more Republicans to declare
their opposition to reach the 34 votes necessary to kill it.
Those final two votes came through this afternoon, when Sens. Rob
Portman (R-Ohio) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) wrote to Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid declaring their intention to vote against the
treaty. As one might expect from Portman and Ayotte, the letter delivers a
studious examination of the costs and the benefits of ratification, and then
concludes:
We are deeply concerned about the treatys breadth and ambiguity, the
inadequate U.S. input in the treatys adjudicative bodies, and the automatic
enforcement of tribunal judgments in the United States. No international
organization owns the seas, and we are confident that our nation
will continue to protect its navigational freedom, valid territorial
claims, and other maritime rights. On balance, we believe the treatys
litigation exposure and impositions on U.S. sovereignty outweigh its potential
benefits. For that reason, we cannot support the Law of the Sea treaty and
would oppose its ratification.
Translation: Dead on arrival.
No doubt the news will bolster Ayottes standing as a rising conservative
leader in the Senate. And it will certainly raise Portmans standing in the
veepstakes, as he wins well-deserved plaudits from national security

conservatives for putting the final stake into the coffin of this long-despised
U.N. power-grab. (Disclosure: My wife is Portmans legislative director.)
Somewhere up there, Jesse Helms is smiling.

LOST already failed once opposition by Republican

Senators sparks fights
Wright, Politico, 12
[Austin, 7-16-13, POLITICO, Law of the Sea treaty sinks in Senate,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78568.html, accessed 7-7-14,
AAZ]
It appears the Law of the Sea treaty is dead in the water at least in
this Congress.
Two Republican senators declared their opposition on Monday to the
international agreement, bringing the total number of Senate opponents
to 34 enough to sink the measure. A two-thirds majority of 67 votes was
required for ratification.
Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) pushed the
opposition movement over the top, citing concerns about U.S.
sovereignty.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nev.), the two Armed
Services Committee members declared: No international organization
owns the seas.
We are confident that our nation will continue to protect its
navigational freedom, valid territorial claims and other maritime
rights, they said.

LOST Unpopular
Conservative opposition to the treaty would be strong
Ballasy 2012 [Nicholas Ballasy senior video reporter 5-9-2012 Daily Caller Panetta: US needs
bipartisan spirit and leadership that Dick Lugar embodies http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/09/panetta-usneeds-bipartisan-spirit-and-leadership-that-dick-lugar-embodies-video/]

conservatives oppose the Law of the Seas treaty, noting that

Reagan first refused to join its signers in 1982. Reagan
said then that it was the product of unfriendly nations whose goal
was to redistribute the worlds riches from the United States and other developed
nations to the Third World. It would also hand jurisdiction over most of the
worlds ocean mass to a UN body, and subject the United States to
mandatory dispute resolution, even with countries that have no
diplomatic ties with the U.S.
Many

president Ronald

Link LOST
LOST links Obama pushes and lots of opposition
Joseph Farah Editor-in-chief at World News Daily, formerly six years as
executive news editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner 6-10- 2012 LOST
appears lost for the year http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/lost-appears-lost-forthe-year/?cat_orig=world DA: 6/5/14
Obama administration has been pressing hard for passage of the Law of the Sea
its prospects this year appear dim, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin. The U.S.
Senate has been trying to pass the treaty since 1994. For those who object to it, there
remain serious security and sovereignty concerns. Also, there is an upcoming
presidential election in which Barack Obama will want to avoid controversy surrounding the treaty as long as those concerns remain. The
Senate needs 67 votes to agree to the treaty and even supporters believe there is little
prospect of obtaining that number. Some 162 countries have signed up to the treaty since it was first
While the
Treaty,

introduced in 1982. However, President Ronald Reagan refused then to sign up to the treaty. President Bill Clinton did sign the treaty but even
with changes the Senate didnt provide an advise and consent vote on it. Thats because the concerns raised then by Reagan in refusing to
sign the treaty remain. They include the fact that while the treaty would give the United States even greater access to oil, minerals and
precious metals found on the ocean floor beyond the 200-mile territorial limit, the issue of revenue in which the U.S. would have to pay a

Critics of the treaty say that it would

create what amounts to an international tax on the U.S. and offers a scheme to redistribute the
nations wealth to the rest of the world without U.S. consent. In effect, it would give the United Nations taxing
authority over sovereign countries. Any royalties collected from U.S. mining would have to go to the United Nations agency
royalty on the wealth it obtains from deep-sea mining and drilling remains.

International Seabed Authority. Critics say there is no say over where the money then would go. Reagan at the time was concerned that
monies would go to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The treaty also would force the U.S. to share any deep sea technology that most

It also would place restrictions on the U.S. Navy

countries do not now have.

by compelling
what amounts to an environmental impact statement on the area where it might conduct exercises. This would be especially difficult if the U.S.
Navy is attempting to keep open the shipping lanes for the Strait of Hormuz since its operations would require that prior to their undertaking
there must be a statement on how such exercises will harm the environment where the ships are operating. Also, the treaty would not allow
the U.S. Navy to stop and board questionable ships on the high seas, even if those ships are involved in piracy, slavery, suspect terrorists or
transporting weapons of mass destruction.

LOST costs capital GOP and lobby opposition is fierce

Dominic Triney, correspondent for The Atlantic and an associate professor
of political science at Swarthmore College, 6-13- 2012 The Rise of UN
Derangement Syndrome
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-rise-of-underangement-syndrome/258454/ DA: 6/5/14
The debate over whether or not Congress should finally ratify the [LOST]Law of
the Sea Treaty has triggered a full-blown outbreak of UN Derangement
Syndrome, the primary symptom of which is an overblown fear of international
organizations. The United Nations' Law of the Sea Treatyprovides international rules for protecting the freedom of the seas,
establishing national maritime zones, and accessing deep-sea resources.For the 160 countries that ratified the treaty, including such close U.S.
allies as Britain, Germany, Canada, India, Australia, South Korea, and Japan, it's a largely uncontroversial pact that creates order and

a small but motivated lobby of

unilateralists, exhibiting the symptoms of UN Derangement Syndrome, oppose ratification. The Law of the
predictability over maritime issues. In the United States, however,

Sea Treaty is a kind of Rorschach test, in which, if the right sort of person looks closely enough, one can discern all the evils of the United
Nations and international law. A bunch of dictators will ride roughshod over American interests. The United States will be constrained by
weaker powers, like Gulliver pinned down by the Lilliputians. And Obama's real identity as a one-world government socialist will be exposed.
Cliff Kincaid, the president of the group America's Survival, argued, "Our national survival is at stake. Our sovereignty is at risk and in danger.
We need your immediate help to avert a catastrophe." This is what Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style in American politics": the
fearful suspicions and conspiratorial fantasies found throughout American history, from Salem witches to Communists. Kincaid warned, "If we

UN Derangement
Syndrome has infected some wider elements of American conservatism.
don't defeat this treaty, the battle against the New World Order will be lost." Worryingly,

Dick Morris argued that a plot to create "one world government" is "happening." Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his memoirs that the Law of the
Sea: "would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of international waters ... into the hands of what was ominously called the
International Seabed Authority." If the Senate ratifies the treaty, Stephen Groves wrote, the U.S. Treasury will be "raided for billions of dollars,"

Twenty-seven Republican
senators signed a letter opposing ratification of the treaty -- just seven votes short of enough
which will then be "redistributed to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy."

They say that the treaty would undermine U.S. "maritime

security," redistribute wealth "from developed to undeveloped nations," create "environmental regulation over virtually all sources of
to block passage.

pollution," and surrender American sovereignty to a "supranational government."

Marine Spatial Planning

Marine spatial planning causes massive controversy GOP
fear regulations and future spending
Rob Hotakainen, Washington Correspondent at McClatchy Newspapers
10-4-2011 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/04/126154/congress-sparsover-ocean-zoning.html DA: 6/4/14

House members clashed Tuesday over a White House plan that essentially calls for zoning the oceans,
with Republicans charging that it already has created more job-killing bureaucracy and
Democrats saying it could give Americans more certainty on how they can use busy public waters. "It has the potential to stunt economic growth and the jobs associated
with that growth," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on
the panel, likened the idea formally known as marine spatial planning to making plans for air space. "Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air-traffic control," he

Hastings, who represents an agricultural district, said he feared that the ocean-planning
process ultimately could lead to new regulations on lands adjacent to rivers
and watersheds that drain into the ocean. "For example," he said, "a farmer working hundreds of miles from
the coastline could be at risk of a new layer of regulatory review based on the ocean." At a committee hearing Tuesday called by Hastings, business
groups assailed the proposal, and an official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
said.

accused the White House of trying to promote the plan with little fanfare, even though it could have a big impact. "From my vantage point, the national ocean policy is the
most significant issue affecting energy security, job creation and economic growth that no one has heard about," said Christopher Guith, the chamber's vice president for

Urg the White House to back away from the plan

policy.
ing
, Guith said the proposal would have a
"plethora of impacts on the country" and add "yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate." "At a time of anemic economic
growth and persistently high unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these trends," Guith said. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said the U.S. must do better
planning for its waters to reverse its "current destructive path." He called the current situation "a bureaucratic mess," noting that more than 140 federal laws and dozens
of agencies have jurisdiction over ocean space. "The terrifying fact is ... that our ocean economy is at risk," Farr said. "Just this summer, a growing 83-mile dead zone in the
Chesapeake Bay was described by scientists as the worst in history." Hastings said he called the oversight hearing because President Barack Obama acted without

he said the
president's new "tangled web of bureaucracy" is sure to lead to White
House requests for more federal spending. "With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new,
congressional approval when he created a task force to come up with new policies to manage the oceans and the nation's coastlines. And

huge, top-down bureaucracy that could override states and local authorities and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will be managed," Hastings
said. "The executive order creates 10 national policies, a 27-member national ocean council, an 18-member governance coordinating committee and nine regional
planning bodies." But most alarming, Hastings said, is "the mandatory ocean zoning ordered to be imposed." "Disguised with the label of coastal marine spatial planning,
ocean zoning could place huge sections of the ocean off-limits to activities not zoned as government-approved," Hastings said. He added that the scope of the president's
plan "goes well beyond the oceans and includes the federalization of the Great Lakes, where states could be dictated to by a regional planning body on where certain
economic activities are allowed." Barry Rutenberg, chairman-elect of the National Association of Home Builders, said homebuilders already compete in one of the most

He expressed
concern that ocean planning would focus too heavily on climate
change. Markey accused opponents of using "scare tactics" by suggesting the plan
highly regulated industries and that the already-battered industry cannot be "weighed down by additional regulatory burdens."

would lead to fewer jobs. He said the word "plan" is not a dirty word and that making plans on how to best use ocean space would promote both commerce and comity, in
some cases even allowing development to move more quickly because rules would already be in place.

Marine spatial planning links federalism issues and

environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
regulatory fragmentation when it comes to many ocean issues makes
the oceans a regulatory orphan, as Florida State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of
U.S.

Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined government plans for

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, convened in

called for the establishment of a national council on ocean
policy to coordinate the various agencies work. A similar report published in 2003 by the Pew Oceans Commission also called for a
managing ocean-based industries, including offshore aquaculture.

2000 by Congress to assess the health of the oceans, published a report in 2004 that

national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-pointsource pollution. Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the
subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the

But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House and Senate
bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory
fledgling industry.

system for offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee, in
part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were widely criticized as
fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary
of Commerce, rather than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean

As with questions of marine spatial planning in general,

different interests still debate whether there should be a national
aquaculture policy and regulation or regional policies . When it comes to fisheries in state waters, regional
ecosystems at risk, Leonard says.

management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management
councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.

Ocean zoning cause controversy GOP House opposition

Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in
the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected
areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful
in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with the misuse of the former and

has been extremely difficult to bring any

rationality into the debate on the application and siting of marine protected areas. Instead they've become a cash
the unknown application of the latter. It

cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns, whether or not there is any need or
the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male
enhancement pills -- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of
marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine
reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and you can kiss

new national monuments

would be carefully scrutinized by the new Congress is welcome. This should
help to slow the process down. The one downside is that the new House is less likely to want to tackle pollution and water
off any kind of measured, rational discussion. The announcement then (see below) that

quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already
designated areas protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil
spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address

The new House leadership will also

slow down the rush to "marine spatial planning

water quality issues affecting MPAs. So what's the difference here?

likely
." A two-year slow down to allow for a
more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that

implementation of spatial planning getting held up in the House Resources

Committee could then lead to off-the-Hill discussions among the various interest groups (fishing, conservation, maritime) to forge
an acceptable policy. In the House there is, or should be, concern from the fishing industry about the
leadership's closeness with Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Development, Big
Pharma and Big Insurance. On the other hand, they don't owe Big Green anything.

National Endowment for the

Oceans
National Endowment for the Oceans drains capital
causes partisan fighting and spills over to other
legislation
David Helvarg, award winning environmental journalist and Executive
Director of Blue Frontier, 2-14-2014 http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-our-attention DA:
6/4/14
The latest battle over the future of Americas ocean frontier is being fought out in a
seemingly unrelated bill in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently
introduced his National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water

Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent

On the House side Tea Party

Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out any funding that might allow
fund based on offshore energy revenue for scientific research and coastal restoration.

the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administrations National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued

One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a

paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal agencies in ways that
constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops.

could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, putting urban planning in the water column, in the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral
Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding
to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately

progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean
continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare
(large marine snail). In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr (DCalif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first
blue ribbon panels to examine the state of Americas blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the
Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commissions recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon
Panetta. As a result Americas seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate
laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions recommendations that he

Congress had become too polarized to

pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered
agreed to do. By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear

there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the
Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to
mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.

National Endowment for the Oceans cause controversy

ideological divide and knee-jerk hostility only new
evidence assumes the gridlocked Congress
Tom Allen is the president and CEO of the Association of American
Publishers and a board member of the Ocean Conservancy. He represented
Maines 1st District in Congress for six terms. , 12-4- 2013 Challenges of a
Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time? | Commentary
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_
act_in_time_commentary-229390-1.html?pg=1 DA: 6/6/14
In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship, a surprising
opportunity has emerged to strengthen our nations ocean and coastal communities,
businesses and environment. Congress should seize the moment and establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the Oceans, Coasts and Great Lakes.
Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing

This legislative conflict is part of

our countrys broader ideological struggle, but with this difference:
On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental group can exercise
coordinated and effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an
provisions with competing visions for the future of ocean and coastal management in America.

provides for a National Endowment for the

Oceans that passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research,
amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that

mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It

reflects the belief that the federal government has an important role
to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By
contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would
undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches to ocean resource management. In an era when we need
government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense. They allow
the local, state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-

This legislative
head-to-head dispute reflects the broader ideological struggle that
haunts the halls of Congress today. Its between those who believe that
the government can be a vehicle to serve the common good and
those who believe that nearly all government action restricts
personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that
looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities.

humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage dump. But now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in
steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening
each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese
tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean

the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility toward any new

government initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didnt generate such
partisan conflict until recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus, I can say that
working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more commonplace. For example, the idea
quality over

of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush.
When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20
coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic governor expressed
any opposition.

National Ocean Policy (NOP)

NOP causes massive controversy riders and opposition
Emily Woglom is Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, for

Ocean Conservancy, previously Office of Management and Budget, Masters

Degree from the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke. 11-15- 2013
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2013/11/15/the-most-importantcongressional-action-on-the-ocean-youve-never-heard-of/ DA: 6/4/14
Congress
Ocean

Right now,
National

has a major opportunity to protect our ocean and coasts. It

can

create a National Endowment for the Oceans and

safeguard the

existing

Policy in one fell swoop. How? Well, its a tale of two bills. The House and the Senate both recently passed versions of a bill called the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), but

their versions are different. The Senate version would establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO), which would expand scientific research, provide planning and resource management, restore habitat and
much more. Conversely,

the House version

not only fails to establish this endowment, it

guts the

existing National Ocean Policy (

NOP

) that ensures

smart use of ocean resources. Soon, a committee made up of members of Congress from both chambers will come together in a conference to combine the two bills into a single final version. The ocean will either
get a big win or suffer a big loss. Whats at stake? Following the recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, NEO would invest in our oceans future. The endowment authorizes grants to
state, regional and tribal entities as well as academic institutions and nonprofit organizations to support ocean and Great Lakes research and restoration projects such as: Restoration of wetlands, coral reefs, sea
grass beds and watersheds Mapping, monitoring, observation and modeling of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes systems Adaptation to the impacts of climate change and mitigation of coastal hazards, including
infrastructure protection Research and monitoring of ocean acidification, hypoxia and harmful algal blooms Conservation of sensitive marine, coastal and Great Lakes species and their habitats Baseline data
collection, ecosystem assessments and mapping for use in planning for new sustainable ocean uses and protecting ecosystem health Planning for sustainable coastal development To put the importance of this work
into perspective, consider that scientists estimate that weve explored less than 5 percent of the ocean, that 91 percent of ocean species remain undiscovered, and that we have better maps of the surface of Mars
than we do of the United States territorial ocean waters. Moreover, NEOs investments would create jobs and support coastal economies. They would also ensure that present and future generations benefit from
the ecological, economic, educational, social, cultural, spiritual, nutritional and recreational resources of our ocean, coasts and Great Lakes. Then, theres the NOP. When it comes to making decisions that impact our
ocean, every tool should be on the table for gathering and sharing information. The NOP is one of those vital, common-sense tools. It allows the entities responsible for ocean use planning to coordinate with each
other, increasing efficiency and reducing redundancy. The NOP also pushes ocean and coastal management out to the regional level, putting ocean management decisions in the hands of on-the-ground people and

Attacks on
the NOP have ranged from hyperbolic to hysterical with the latest one
coming in the form of an amendment
offered by
Flores
The rider attempts to block full implementation of the NOP
businesses that will be impacted by ocean management decisions. In the words of Sen. Edward Markey, opposing the National Ocean Policy is like opposing air traffic control.
,

to WRDA

district.

Flores

Rep. Bill

, who is not from a coastal

. It would prohibit

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a key coastal and ocean management agency, from coordinating with coastal states, other federal agencies and the public as they engage in smart ocean planning.

Ocean Nuclear Waste Disposal

Ocean nuclear waste disposal links huge controversy
John Robert Emshwiller is a senior national correspondent for the Wall

Street Journal. In 2002, he shared the Gerald Loeb Award for his coverage of
the unfolding Enron scandal, 12-31- 2013 Nuclear Waste Sits on Ocean
Floor
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230477310457926856
3658319196 DA: 6/8/14
More than four decades after

the U.S. halted controversial ocean dumping

a

program, the country is facing a mostly

forgotten Cold War legacy in its waters: tens of thousands of steel drums of atomic waste. From 1946 to 1970, federal records show, 55-gallon drums and other containers of nuclear waste were pitched into the
Atlantic and Pacific at dozens of sites off California, Massachusetts and a handful of other states. Much of the trash came from government-related work, ranging from mildly contaminated lab coats to waste from
the country's effort to build nuclear weapons. Federal officials have long maintained that, despite some leakage from containers, there isn't evidence of damage to the wider ocean environment or threats to public
health through contamination of seafood. But a Wall Street Journal review of decades of federal and other records found unanswered questions about a dumping program once labeled "seriously substandard" by a
senior Environmental Protection Agency official: How many dump sites are there? Over the years, federal estimates have ranged from 29 to more than 60. How much of various types of radioisotopes are in the
waste containers? While some isotopes are short-lived, others remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. Has evidence of radioactive contamination in fish been adequately pursued? A 1983 California
law calling for fish testing and annual reports on a major dump site off San Francisco produced just one state report, in 1991, even though that study found fish contamination and recommended follow-up research.
Where are all the containerswhose numbers top 110,000, by one federal counton the sea floor, even at known dump sites? For instance, an estimated 47,000 containers lie at the site near San Francisco.
Though there were three designated dump areas for the containers, "many were not dropped on target," according to a 2010 report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which called the
waste site a "potentially significant resource threat." Much of the siteabout 50 miles west of San Francisco, near the Farallon Islandsis within a national marine sanctuary that the federal government describes as
"a globally significant" ecosystem "that supports abundant wildlife and valuable fisheries." Only about 15% of an estimated 540 square miles of sea floor containing the barrels, at depths from 300 to over 6,000
feet, has been evaluated, the NOAA report said. In a recent response to questions, NOAA said it wants to further study the dump site but lacks the funds. Representatives of federal agencies recently contacted
reiterated that the evidence collected over the years shows that the dump sites aren't posing any threat to the environment or the public. Concerned about the Farallon site, the California legislature passed the
1983 law calling for fish sampling in the area, where commercial fishing occurs. A spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health said the law only required reports as funds were available, and they
haven't been since 1991. Plus, she said, researchers "didn't find anything in the first survey." "I would beg to differ," Thomas Suchanek, the principal investigator and lead author of the 1991 study, said recently. The
study found americium, a radioactive decay product of plutonium, in some fish samples from the site as well as a comparison area about 60 miles away. The report calculated that plutonium in underwater sediment
at the dump site was up to about 1,000 times normal background levels. Regularly eating such contaminated fish, about a pound a week, could expose a person to up to 18.5 millirems of additional radiation a year,
the report said. A chest X-ray typically gives about 2 to 10 millirems, while the average American gets about 300 millirems a year from natural background radiation. While an occasional meal of such fish wouldn't
be a worry, "I wouldn't want to eat it as a steady diet," said Dr. Suchanek. Current scientific thinking holds that even small doses of additional radiation can over time raise cancer risk by a small amount. The
California health department, in a written response to questions from the Journal, said continued monitoring of the dump should be a federal responsibility. The agency also provided a 1990 document from a nowdefunct state advisory board saying the fish tested "do not appear to have a significant level of radioactivity." A 2001 federal study of part of the Farallon dump site found indications of leakage from barrels, but only
"very low levels" of radioactive contamination in sediment samples. The Food and Drug Administration said that in 1990 it found traces of plutonium in fish samples from the site but at levels well within safety
standards. Questions about the sites stem partly from the government's approach to discarding the waste. Early on, waste drums were simply "taken out to a convenient location and put overboard," said a 1956
report from the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission. "Little administrative or technical control of those operations was required or exercised." Estimates of the radioactivity amounts in the containers "could be
off as much as a factor of 10," the document said, adding "little is known of the fate of radioisotopes added to the sea." Commercial fishermen have at times hauled up waste containers from various parts of
Massachusetts Bay, home to a dump site. Frank Mirarchi, a 70-year-old retired commercial fisherman, said his catches occasionally included nuclear junk containers. After one such discovery, Mr. Mirarchi said
government officials checked him and his crew for radiation but didn't find problems. Early government survey efforts had difficulty finding the dumps. One 1980 report by an EPA official noted that in 11,000
underwater photos taken in the early 1960s during dump surveys in the Atlantic and Pacific, no photo captured a single waste drum. Years after it started, the federal government began having second thoughts
about the ocean dumping, as did other countries over their own programs. A 1970 report from the federal Council on Environmental Quality recommended no further ocean dumping except as a last resort. That

Government and
public interest in the fate of offshore waste has waxed and waned
over the decades
the biggest flare-up came
amid talk
dumping might resume
Environmentalists and elected officials
jumped into action.
who argued
environmental damage
were
already arising
same year, ocean dumping off the U.S. coasts effectively ended. (In the 1990s, the U.S. signed on to an international compact banning the practice.)
that

. Perhaps

in the late 1970s and early 1980s

in the U.S.

some

A leading voice of alarm was W. Jackson Davis, a now-retired professor of biological and environmental sciences at the University of California, Santa

Cruz,

in papers and hearings that evidence showed

and health threats

at the dump sites. In a recent interview, Mr. Davis recalled that the more he learned about the subject, "the more appalled I became."

Disaster Relief

Disaster Relief

Link Disaster Relief General

Disaster relief links- strong opposition to more funding
Raymond Hernandez, NYT contributor, Cuomo to Seek $30 Billion in Aid
for Storm Relief, NYT, 11-12-2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/nyregion/cuomo-to-seek-30-billion-inaid-for-storm-relief.html?_r=0, DA: 6/7/14

Mr. Cuomos request could be seen as a challenge to Mr. Obama to make good on his pledge, delivered

it also
could be seen as a test of the governors ability to extract billions of dollars of
aid from Washington at a difficult time, with White House officials
and Congressional leaders searching to find areas of government to cut to
during a high-profile visit to New Jersey, to provide federal support for the recovery effort. But

avert a Jan. 1 fiscal crisis. It is far from certain whether Mr. Cuomo will get what he is looking for despite
the presidents reassurances. The amount the governor is apparently seeking would exceed the roughly
$12 billion in FEMA disaster aid currently available in Washington without action from Congress, where

there is likely to be strong opposition to more spending.

Mr. Cuomos plan,

which is still being drafted by his aides, rests in part on persuading the federal government to make an
emergency appropriation in the coming weeks during a lame-duck session of Congress that begins on
Tuesday. New York will not be alone in seeking disaster relief from Washington. Members of Congress in
both major parties from other storm-ravaged states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New
Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia will almost certainly be seeking federal
assistance for their constituents.

Disaster relief causes controversy BAS News 11-12-2012New York to request $30 billion in additional
disaster aid http://www.knickledger.com/2012/11/new-york-to-request-30billion-in-additional-disaster-aid/ DA: 6/7/14
Faced with a staggering recovery from Hurricane Sandy, New York State is formulating a request for up to
$30 billion in additional aid from the federal government. The New York Times reports that Governor
Andrew M. Cuomos request will be separate from the $12 billion in aid already available from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and includes the costs of rehabilitating infrastructure damaged or

Because
the additional $30 billion is not already appropriated, the funding
must be approved by Congress. However, the Republican-led House of
Representatives has consistently sought to reduce federal spending and
Cuomos request may face opposition by Republican budget hawks
committed to austerity. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is currently locked in
destroyed during the storm as well as the economic impact of long-lasting business closures.

negotiations with President Barack Obama over measures to raise revenue and trim federal budgets to
avoid an automatic $1 trillion in cuts and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on January 1,2013. While Obama
appears to have a stronger position in these negotiations following his election day victory, Cuomos
request will increase pressure on Obama and Congress to deliver additional funding. Other states along the
Atlantic coast affected by Hurricane Sandy may also make requests for additional funding from Congress
as well. Representatives from storm-ravaged districts will likely push for additional aid, and while this may
make House leadership more amendable to providing relief funding ,

it will likely complicate

budgetary decisions on the mix of tax increases and budget cuts enacted to avoid the fiscal
cliff.

Link Disaster Relief Fish

Disaster relief costs PC no majority of supporters
Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, December 2010 What Fisheries Might Expect in
the New Congress http://www.pcffa.org/fn-dec10.htm DA: 6/6/14

The chances of fishermen getting any disaster relief for this year -whether they're from New England, the Pacific salmon fleet, or fishing the
Yukon River -- are not good. The State of Massachusetts has recently asked for
$40 million to help out their beleaguered fleet, and Pacific salmon fishermen are still hurting from a small 2010
season with few fish from the central Oregon coast extending south all along California. Traditional
champions for fishermen -- from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, Frank Pallone and Mike Thompson
-- are now in the minority.
Disaster Relief.

Link Debris Clean-Up

Debris clean-up costs PC Obama pushes, spending
causes intense opposition and pushes off other agenda
items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime
Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budge
t+Outlook+for+Maritime+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year,
was delivered late this year. The President's budget arrived in Congress in the midst of two very different
views of the budget passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These

resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House
resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March
23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in
the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent
[infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital
to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of
Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance
our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration
("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the
Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and
mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from
75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The
President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See
H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has
requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including
funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic
and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These
agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National
Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation

the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending
the Marine
Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5
is passed this year. For NOAA,

plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which

million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an
increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series

The House of Representatives is likely to

pass appropriation bills that are vastly different from the White House's request. In fact,
Members of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation
Subcommittee, have already questioned whether full funding can be provided for the
Commerce/NOAA budgets. It also remains to be seen whether Congress can
revert to regular order, i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another
CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but this is not likely
to happen in the near term except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached. The
government keeps limping along with cuts from sequester, delays in
Congressional approval for spending plans, and uncertainties in the
outcome for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed. The House
and Senate will once again have to debate their respective visions for the 2014 budget
of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.

and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a

Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the

debt ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
fight over offsetting budget cuts.

Debris clean-up controversial funding concerns, not

enough people affected
Annie Feidt is the Editor and Producer of Alaska News Nightly, and is also a
frequent contributor to Alaska Public Radio1-30- 2013 Tsunami Debris

Problem Gets Worse in Alaska, with Little Clean Up Funding In Sight

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/01/30/tsunami-debris-problem-gets-worsein-alaska-with-little-clean-up-funding-in-sight/ DA: 6/8/14
Marine debris is not a new problem in Alaska. But the Japanese tsunami magnified the problem. Pallister
says the tsunami debris doesnt have the visceral impact of the Exxon Valdez spill, with oiled animals and blackened coastlines. But he thinks
in the long run, it could be a bigger environmental disaster: In a lot of ways its a lot worse than the oil spill. Both in the geographic scope of it
and the chemicals that are coming with it. And who knows what the impacts are going to be?, Pallister said. Officially, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration has recorded just five tsunami debris items in Alaska. But the agency will only confirm an object if it has a
unique identifier that can be traced back to Japan. The state of Alaska does not use the same strict standard. Last summer the state paid for
an aerial survey to inspect 2,500 miles of Alaskas coastline. Elaine Busse Floyd is acting director of the division of environmental health. She
says the survey identified tsunami debris all along the flight path from southern Southeast, up to Prince William Sound and out the Alaska
Peninsula: There was tsunami debris literally on every beach that was photographed. They took over 8,000 pictures and it was more

But so far there has been minimal

funding for cleaning up the debris. Governor Sean Parnell didnt included any tsunami debris funding in his budget. NOAA is figuring
out how to distribute a $5 million gift from Japan for cleaning up the debris. And Alaskas Congressional
delegation is working to get federal funds. But tsunami debris clean up
money was stripped from a bill for Hurricane Sandy relief that passed this week. Back on the beach, as
widespread and in greater quantities than we even expected, she said.

the waves crash in, Chris Pallister says the debris could have serious impacts on fisheries and subsistence resources. I dont know if its being

I dont think a lot of people who are going to be

impacted by it know how bad it is right now. And until that gets out, maybe not much is
going to happen, he said. Pallister guesses it will take tens, or even hundreds of millions
of dollars to remove the tsunami debris in Alaska. On this day though, he has to leave all the trash on Montague Island behind. We
taken seriously enough.

take off in the helicopter and head north along the beach. Pallister looks out the window at all the debris below and says, it just goes on and
on and on.

Link Seach and Rescue General

Search and rescue funding causes controversy seen as
pork-barrel spending and opposition in Congress to
environmental issues
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2- 2007
US ocean observatories imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA: 6/10/14
, a network of high-tech buoys and radar stations have been providing a rich stream of data
about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to fishermen, mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a
prototype for a national system that could help with ocean managemen t and save the
lives of mariners. But the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) and others like it
across the country may not be able to save themselves. Their federal funding is ending, in part
because of congressional reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel
spending. What makes the $4 million-a-year GoMoos stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks think
For the past six years

Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in and out of Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a
groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being
pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations
that would gather and process oceanographic information and release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data.
Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established across the United States and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is
seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have been fished
into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean
politics should be revamped to take into account how marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists
require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy,
a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have

search and rescue. "We're often

trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes for us to get to them, so we rely on predictive models of wind
and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C. "These systems allow our controllers to get the
"invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved

best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the
abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed
information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life without destroying the ocean's ability to
produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who
studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to know what's going on deep beneath the
ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka,

oceanobserving networks are facing the same squeeze. "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in
GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of uncertainty." Other

the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which has deferred maintenance on its

The root problem: Congress never passed

legislation to fund the system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would have formally established and fund the
national system. House versions never came to the floor for a vote , according to congressional
sources from both parties, because of the opposition of then- Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural
resources committee, he often opposed spending on environmental issues. As a result, the ocean-observing systems relied on
buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured.

congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent

It's an
inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's difficult to
separate what is worthwhile from what might not be ."
years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "

Link Search and Rescue - MH370

Navy MH370 search causes controversy most expensive
search ever
The Rakyat Post, 4-18-2014
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/04/18/mh370-search-cost-will-behuge/ DA: 6/12/14

The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is set to be the most expensive in
aviation history, analysts say, as efforts to find the aircraft deep under the Indian Ocean show no signs of slowing. The Boeing
777 vanished on March 8 with 239 people on board, after veering dramatically off course en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and is believed to have crashed in the sea
off Australia. Australia, which is leading the search in a remote patch of water described as unknown to man, has not put a figure on spending, but Malaysia has warned

costs will be huge.

that
When we look at salvaging (wreckage) at a depth of 4.5km, no military out there has the capacity to do it, AFP
quoted Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein yesterday. We have to look at contractors and the cost of that will be huge. Ravikumar Madavaram, an
aviation expert at Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, said Malaysia, Australia and China, which had the most nationals onboard the flight, were the biggest spenders and
estimated the total cost up to now at about US$100 million (RM324 million). Its difficult to say how much the cost of this operation is but, yes, this is definitely the
biggest operation ever (in aviation history). In terms of costs this will be the highest. In the first month of the search, in which the South China Sea and Malacca Strait
were also scoured by the US, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam, the Pentagon said the US military had committed US$7.3 million to efforts to find the plane. Meanwhile, the
Indian Ocean search, in which assets have also been deployed by Australia, Britain, China, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, has failed to find anything conclusive.

Hopes rest on a torpedo-shaped US Navy submersible, which is searching the ocean floor at depths of more than 4,500m
in the vicinity of where four signals believed to have come from black box recorders were detected. David Gleave, an aviation safety researcher at Britains Loughborough

the costs will be in the order of a hundred million dollars by the time
the longer it took to find any wreckage, the more costs
would mount because scanning the vast ocean floor will take a lot of money because you can only search about 50sq km a day. Salvaging anything
University, said

were finished, if we have found it (the plane) now. But he said

would also depend on how deep the ocean is at the crash point and how dispersed the wreckage, with weather and politics also complicating factors, he said. The fate of
MH370 has drawn parallels with the hunt for Air France Flight447 which plunged into the Atlantic in 2009. The two-year operation to recover its black box, which involved
assets from France, Brazil and the US, has been estimated to have cost 80-100 million euros, according to figures cited by Frances Investigation and Analysis Bureau
(BEA). Australias Joint Agency Coordination Centre says its main focus is still on finding flight MH370. It is one of the most difficult searches ever undertaken and could
take some time, JACC said in a statement.. The cost of the search is significant. The exact figure has not yet been calculated. The cost is being shared by our
international partners who have contributed their people and military and civilian assets to help with the search. As the search continues, all international partners are
meeting their own costs. But governments and militaries will need to consider the broader cost implications of the search down the track, said Kym Bergmann, editor of
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. I dont think that the Australians will be getting any change at all out of A$1 million a day. Bergman said it would likely be the most
expensive aviation search given how long it had already dragged on. It must be starting to worry military planners, he said, adding that any decision to scale back would
cause heartache to the families involved. Madavaram, who is based in Malaysia, agreed, saying at present it was still politically insensitive to cut spending. I think

they will continue one or two months irrespective of the costs, he said.
But then if nothing is found , it will become a wild goose chase , and
people will start questioning it.

Opposition to more MH370 searching funding crackdowns

Matt Siegel, Senior Political and General News Correspondent for Thomson
Reuters based in Australia. 4-30-2014
United States the first country to scale back its spending on costly Flight
MH370 search, source says
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/30/united-states-the-first-country-toscale-back-its-spending-on-costly-flight-mh370-search-source-says/ DA:
6/16/14
With the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 entering a new, much longer
phase, the countries involved must decide how much they are
prepared to spend on the operation and what they stand to lose if they hold back. The search is already set to be the
most costly in aviation history and spending will rise significantly as
underwater drones focus on a larger area of the seabed that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott
said on Monday could take six to eight months to search. But despite U.S. President Barack Obama publicly
promising to commit more assets, the United States appears keen to begin
passing on the costs of providing sophisticated sonar equipment that will form the backbone of the expanded hunt. That
means Australia, China and Malaysia the countries most closely involved in the operation look set to bear the financial and logistical burden

Were already at tens of millions. Is it worth

hundreds of millions? a senior U.S. defence official asked last week. I dont know. Thats
for them to decide. He made it clear that Washington was intent on spending less from
now on, making it the first major donor country to scale back its financial commitment to the search. Were not going
of a potentially lengthy and expensive search.

to pay to perpetually use the equipment on an indefinite basis. Basically from here on out starting
next week or so they need to pick up the contract, he said. At least $44 million was spent on the deployment of military ships and aircraft in
the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in the first month of the search, about the same as was spent on the whole underwater search for Air
Frances Flight AF447, which crashed into the Mid-Atlantic in 2009. The Malaysian jetliner carrying 239 people disappeared en route from Kuala
Lumpur to Beijing more than seven weeks ago, and huge surface and underwater searches have failed to solve the mystery of what happened.
That mystery has major implications for airline manufacturers such as Boeing, which builds the 777 model that crashed and is awaiting a
verdict as to what went wrong. Malaysia is leading an investigation into the crash, but Australia has a key role in coordinating the hunt since
the plane is believed to have crashed in its search and rescue zone. Abbott said finding any wreckage on the ocean surface was now highly
unlikely and Australia would forge ahead with the upcoming phase of the search despite it likely costing A$60-million. He added that while
private companies under contract to Australia would soon be taking over from the military assets dispatched in the wake of the crash, he
would be seeking some appropriate contribution from other nations.

MH370 search costs PC no Congressional consensus on

approach or spending money
Stephen Trimble, Flight Global DC correspondent, 3-24-2014 MH370
disappearance spurs calls for action by US lawmakers
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh370-disappearance-spurs-callsfor-action-by-us-lawmakers-397357/ DA: 6/12/14
lawmaker says he expects Congress to hold hearings on advancing technology that
could have prevented the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER going missing on 8 March. Malaysian officials confirmed
A US

on 24 March that new satellite data indicates that Flight MH370 crashed in the South Indian Ocean, implying the aircraft traversed thousands

The US Navy has budgeted $4 million to devote

search aircraft, including the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, and other equipment to the hunt for the wreckage. Theres a role
for Congress here particularly when you consider the expense were going
through to find this plane, says Rep Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. Id like expect to have the
Congress hold hearings with the NTSB and the FAA to find out what is the state of
technology, how quickly are we moving to satellite transmissions, says Schiff, speaking on CNNs State of the Union talk show on 23
of miles untracked from its intended destination in Beijing.

March. The disappearance of the aircraft has shocked many who believed that modern airliners could not be lost with the existing state of
communications and tracking technology. It seems crazy, though, in this day that we can have a major civilian airliner vanish in thin air and
were down to a 30-day ping to find it, Schiff says. Rep Patrick Meehan, a Republican from Pennsylvania, noted on earlier episode of the CNN
show on 23 March that systems that monitor air traffic are not present over large bodies of water. As a member of the House aviation
subcommittee, Meehan illustrated that
technology,

suggesting it

there remains no consensus on how to address the lack of tracking

could still be too expensive to invest in fool-proof systems.

Link Search and Rescue - MH 370 Orion

Funding
Orion deployment costs millions
Henry Austin joined NBC News as a contributor in June 2013, and covers

domestic and foreign breaking stories for NBCNews.com. Austin joined NBC
News after more than 10 years as a reporter. After starting at British press
agency South West News Service, he moved to British newspapers The Sun
and The People, before relocating to Canada to help set up press agency Hot
News. There, he covered U.S. news stories for a variety of newspapers and
magazines around the world. 5-6-2014 Missing MH370: Only 'Handful' of
Subs Capable of Hunting Jet http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missingjet/missing-mh370-only-handful-subs-capable-hunting-jet-n97901 DA: 6/12/14
Only "a handful" of

vehicles can search the depths

submersible
of the southern Indian
Ocean in the area that is believed to be the final resting place of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, experts said Tuesday. Officials
announced Monday that all of the data compiled in the hunt for the Boeing 777 will be re-examined to make sure the right area is being

part of a new $55 million phase of the operation

scoured as
. Flight 370 search enters new
phase TODAY Capt. John Noble, the former general manager of the International Salvage Union, told NBC News that it made sense to narrow
down the search area as much as possible. You'd be lucky if there was a handful of vehicles that can to go to the sort depths of the ocean that
we are talking about here because they simply don't make them, Noble said. Listen to Air Traffic Control Interaction With Flight MH370 NBC

Navy

Orion might be an option

News A U.S.
deep-tow search system called the
, Noble said. It can search to a
maximum depth of 20,000 feet of seawater, according the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving. The Orion would operate in tandem
with a remotely operated vehicle called Curv 21 which could salvage any wreckage. Most commercially owned remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs) arent designed to go to those depths because there simply isnt the call for them, according to Dr. Simon Boxall at Britains University
of Southampton. As a result, many of those built are used for government research projects. They have a distinct advantage over autonomous
underwater vehicles like the Bluefin 21 sub which has been leading the search, because their cameras allow a live view of the seabed he said.
The Bluefins data can only be downloaded and analyzed by researchers after it has resurfaced, he added. An ROV will also have manipulators
like claws built onto it, he added. So if you found a black box they would be capable of picking it up or they can attach cables to a wing so it

At around $17,000 per day, an ROV costs considerably

more to run than the Bluefin, Boxall said. Image: Bluefin-21 LSIS Bradley Darvill / Australian Defence via EPA The Bluefin-21 as it is
craned over the side of Ocean Shield in the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370 in the southern Indian Ocean on April 16. A
substantial support vessel like the Australian Defense Vessel, Ocean Shield would also be
required as a sea base for the team because of the rough seas, Capt. Noble
can be brought to the surface.

said. Ocean Shield has been used to launch the unmanned Bluefin 21 submarine that has been scouring the ocean floor for the jet. A similar

almost $68,000 a day, he said. So youre looking at a

huge amount after just a few months. For Boxall however, it was a question of priorities as well as
the time and money it would cost to use one of these vessels. Its a hard thing to say but this is a search operation
rather than a search and rescue operation so do you pull a research team off their project for a
year to look for something that may never be found or do you let them continue with
vessel would cost the searchers

their important scientific research, he said.

Maritime funding causes huge fights acrimonious battles

with House GOP
Larry Kiern is a partner in Winston & Strawn's Washington, D.C. office who
concentrates his practice in litigation, arbitration, maritime, environmental,
legislative, and regulatory matters 2-15-2013 Congress Decides Maritime
Issues Amid Fiscal Policy Debate http://www.maritimeexecutive.com/magazine/Congress-Decides-Maritime-Issues-Amid-FiscalPolicy-Debate DA: 6/7/14
the
Congress featured threats of
shutdown in
order to force spending cuts
House Republican leaders
asserted they would refuse to
trigger
spending cuts
From the outset,

newly convened 113th

more

that

a partial government

. Prominent

raise the national debt limit and thereby

initially

a shutdown and mandatory

. They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders

decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the
economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced simply that

there will be no additional tax revenues. So the first months of

process

the Congress promise to replay the acrimonious

new

whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases.

this irresponsible
political game of chicken harms
its maritime industry
When Congress proves
unready to make hard decisions it does what most legislative bodies
do: It postpones them.
As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly,
only

the nations economy, including

. In the

summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating.
,

Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have

proven unable to agree on additional spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting
the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way
spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just witnessed. When push
comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional
spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver
espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon
which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fiscal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important
laws: (1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast
Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated
House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water
standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level.

adopt

other

significant proposals

Congress declined to
also

. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference

provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S.
government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep. However, despite widespread
bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.

Energy

General Resources

Resource Exploitation Costs Political Capital

Resource exploitation costs political capital
Biber, University of California Berkeley School of Law, 13
[Eric, 2013, Ecology and Society, The Challenge of Collecting and Using
Environmental Monitoring Data,
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art68/#author_address,
accessed 7/7/2014 CK]
Powerful political actors opposed to management changes can use

residual uncertainty to argue that monitoring data does not require management changes, even when
monitoring data might be considered effective by outside observers (Halbert 1993, Gunderson 2003b).

inaction can be made more

appealing by arguing that additional research is required to narrow
uncertainty (Walters 1997, Nichols and Williams 2006, Allen and Gunderson 2011). Second,
statistical analysis in monitoring programs often gives a significant
advantage to parties supporting the status quo. Because of the
importance of uncertainty, decisions about the statistical burden of
proof, how to resolve questions about whether monitoring data
indicates that management should be changed, are often outcome
determinative (Martin et al. 2009). Many resource management agencies
have emphasized the risk of type I errors, i.e., approving an action,
taken to be sound (true) based on the best science, that later proves
to be unsound (false), even though type II errors, the opposite dynamic, may be just as
These actors have at least four advantages. First,

important (Stankey et al. 2005:27). This risk aversion makes it hard to change management practices.

when the status quo involves significant economic exploitation

of a resource (often), decision makers tend to minimize information
that supports reducing exploitation. In fisheries management, when
scientists give decision makers a range of possible quotas for
fishing, decision makers regularly and consistently set fishing
quotas as high as possible within that band of uncertainty (Eagle and
Third,

Thompson 2003). This pressure to resolve uncertainty in favor of economic development or exploitation
derives from a number of sources, such as the advantage that regulated interests often have in the

Another important factor is the need among

economic interests for regulatory certainty (Ruhl 2008). Certainty will
create strong political resistance to changes in how much an
environmental resource can be exploited. Fourth, political and legal
inertia often prevent changes to existing management and
regulatory systems (Lazarus 2009). An agency may simply not have
enough legal authority, money, or time to adequately review or
analyze effective monitoring data, or to implement management
changes based on that data (Gregory et al. 2006, Doremus 2011). Inertia may
make it difficult to change the statutory or regulatory structures
that inhibit agency action. Overcoming that inertia requires political
capital, time, and energy.
political arena (Zinn 2002).

Offshore Wind

Offshore Wind
Wind unpopular- Not in my backyard
Maxwell 12
Veery is a third-year law student at UC Hastings, Wind Energy Development:
Can Wind Energy Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid, West
Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. &
Poly323, lexis , kk
A critical barrier to entry for wind energy development is local hostility.
While the American public is very supportive of wind energy in
theory, not many people want large turbines in their neighborhood .
n34 This social phenomenon is commonly referred to as NIMBY-ism ("Not In My BackYard"), and is a
growing problem for wind energy developers. Citizens have attempted to block wind farms, complaining
the turbines are a visual blight, are too noisy, and create odd flutter shadows. n35 These complaints have
resulted in lawsuits, and at times halted, delayed, or dramatically limited proposed projects. n36 The

The turbines are large,

the site construction is invasive, and the projects are often built in
relatively rural areas. The turbines look very [*329] industrial, and therefore present a jarring
fundamental grievance with wind farms in the United States is siting.

contrast to the pleasant agricultural landscape they regularly occupy. According to Robert Kahn, a siting
expert, "Americans put a high value on wilderness and open space. Sparks fly when lands seen as public
viewscapes (even if they are not publicly owned) appear threatened. Unfortunately, these lands are where
developable renewable resources are to be found." n37 Renewable resources like wind and solar power
tend to be easiest to capture in large open areas, which can overlap with scenic areas and parklands. In
order to lessen local opposition, wind developers have attempted to mitigate the negative impacts of their
projects. Some companies have even gone so far as to hire artists to try and make the turbines look "artsy'
instead of industrial. n38

Wind is unpopular- seen as too big

Takashi 6-6
Patrick is Director Emeritus of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the
University of Hawaii and co-founder of the Pacific International Center for
High Technology Research, Why is Wind Power Suddenly Unpopular,
http://planetearthandhumanity.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-is-windpowersuddenly-unpopular.html , kk
across the nation and throughout the world, it seems like wind energy
conversion systems have suddenly become an issue on the level of
new coal and nuclear facilities. In the 50th State, "Big Wind" is roundly
being criticized and even Donald Trump is warning about the evils of windpower, as related to
In Hawaii,

China, tourism and Scotland. There were protesters about him being a windbag. Hey, give him a break, as
he's having other more important problems, like with Miss Pennsylvania at his Miss USA pageant. Worse,
the U.S. Congress, as broken as it is, seems currently negative on the production tax credit, the one piece
of legislation that will make or break this technology. So what is really happening? Nothing much new. For
one, when the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute advocated this form of renewable electricity a third of a
century ago, we were criticized by the Audubon Society (incidentally, they've since gotten smarter about
this) for killing birds, resorts (in Kahuku) spoke against this option at hearings for fear their investment
would suffer from image problems, noise protesters were always present, more than a few felt that these
ugly machines would affect their aesthetics and a few more depicted at the left protest (this was in Canada
in April). I might add that wind energy (with geothermal and hydroelectric) is the ONLY "new" sustainable
option somewhat competitive with coal and nuclear. Solar PV remains three times the cost of wind. Let's
look at the matter of bird kills, for, apparently, the figure in Massachusetts is 100,000 murdered birds/year.
Here is the reality: - glass windows: at least 100 million, and, perhaps up to a billion bird deaths/year house cats: 100 million/year - vehicles: 50 million to 100 million - electric transmission lines: 174 million
- hunting: more than 100 million Ever seen any protests against glass windows, cats.....? Oh, by the way,
there could well be around 400 billion birds in the world. Nothing about energy is perfect.

Offshore Renewable Energy Is Unpopular

Kennedy 12

Kristy Kennedy is a Naperville-based free-lance writer, Offshore energy

August 2012, http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2012/07/offshore.html ,
Daniel
The wind off Lake Michigan is legendary. It most famously contributes to the Windy City image of Chicago, provided a name for an ill-fated 1975 football team called the Chicago Winds and
was immortalized as the hawk wind in the first line of Steve Goodmans song A Dying Cub Fans Last Request. In fact, the wind blows across a largely uninterrupted expanse of 22,400
square miles of water, Lake Michigan, which is slightly smaller than West Virginia and larger than nine of the United States. There has always been wonderful wind over the Great Lakes,
says Victoria Pebbles, program director for the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, a coalition of wind energy stakeholders working to facilitate the sustainable development of wind power in the
Great Lakes. If there was a way to harness all of the wind on the Great Lakes, about 740 gigawatts of energy would be produced, according to a 2011 U.S. Department of Energy report on
national offshore wind strategy. With one gigawatt equaling about 3.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity annually and an average home requiring 1.15 megawatt-hours a year (according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the potential for wind energy is staggering. Imagine capturing not only all of the wind energy on the Great Lakes, but also adding the offshore
wind along Americas coastlines, in the Gulf of Mexico and around Hawaii. The capacity of the current U.S. electric power system could be close to quadrupled, the U.S. Department of Energy
reports. That shows the tremendous opportunity for the resource, says Christopher Long, manager of offshore wind and siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association. Now, it is
crazy to think every last offshore breeze could be captured and turned into usable electricity. The issue is far more complicated than looking at it in simple terms of how much energy is

There are currently no offshore wind farms in the United States

for many reasons. Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Offshore wind
turbines are extremely expensive and can cost more than five times
that of an onshore turbine, according to industry experts. Also,
there is no infrastructure in place to transfer electricity from
offshore wind farms to the power grid. Some people dont like the
looks of turbines; some fear their impact on the environment; and
others dont think the nations waters should be used to feed our
hunger for power. Still, the federal government and states such as Illinois are pushing for renewable energy. President Barack Obama set a goal in his 2011
available.

State of the Union Address for 80 percent of Americas electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035. In March, a Memorandum of Understanding between 10 federal agencies and
the governors of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania was signed to facilitate offshore wind proposals for the Great Lakes. Illinois law, similar to laws in other states,
requires 25 percent of the states electricity to come from renewable resources by 2025. To ignore the potential of offshore wind and the push for renewable energy is to miss out. We think
the day is coming pretty quickly when there will be offshore wind farms in the United States, says Patrick Gilman, wind market acceleration and deployment team leader in the wind and
water power program with the U.S. Department of Energy. It is a question of when and not if. He sees wind farms in the Great Lakes as part of that movement. State Rep. Robyn Gabel, a
Democrat from Evanston, has been leading the way in the states creation of a permitting process for offshore wind farming in Lake Michigan. Two years ago, Evanston, which is actively
seeking ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, identified developers interested in pursuing an offshore wind farm but discovered that no state permit process existed to allow such a
farm to be built. We realized we needed to be clear about how one goes about leasing the lakebed and the process for establishing this kind of renewable energy in the lake, Gabel says.
And so, Gabel sponsored legislation creating the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Advisory Council to draft an advisory report for the General Assembly that was released at the end of
June. One reason to set up this task force is to raise all the questions and the issues we would need answers for before we put an offshore wind farm in the lake, Gabel says. The council
looked at a number of areas such as: what criteria should be used to evaluate applications, how to identify areas favorable and unfavorable for development, what process should be used for
the public to weigh in on development proposals, how the state should be compensated for leasing the lakebed and what others have learned from offshore wind development. Its a big
issue, and we have to get it right, says Todd Main, deputy director for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Weve got a good sense about where we need to go as a trustee for Lake
Michigan and how we protect and evaluate the habitats, wildlife and navigation of the lake. The next move is the creation, by the state legislature, of another committee to look at how the
generation of offshore electricity gets into Illinois electric grid and then what role the Illinois Power Agency and Illinois Commerce Commission would play. Where does that happen? How
does that impact electricity transfers? Who pays for it? Main asks. There needs to be more study. The findings of the new committee then likely would be meshed with information
gathered by the current advisory council to create permitting and regulatory legislation, he says. While offshore wind farming policy appears to be shaping up in Illinois, other factors are
putting a damper on the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. Just because Illinois officials are crafting a permitting process doesnt mean turbines should be allowed in the lake, says
Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of Alliance for the Great Lakes, an independent citizens organization with a mission to conserve and restore the Great Lakes. What I think is essential to
this process is [that] legislators enter into any conversation about offshore wind with a clear understanding of the legacy they will be leaving for future generations, he says. Im not
comfortable that offshore wind is the right reason to build on the bottom of the lakebed. To put it simply, if you can build one thing in the lake, why not another? His concerns cant be
dismissed as they go to the heart of the public trust doctrine, a federal and state court common law that recognizes that the state of Illinois holds public water resources, including Lake
Michigan, in trust for the benefit of and use by its citizens. Court cases historically have allowed the lake to be used for public benefit, such as the expansion of Lincoln Park, but not for
private use, such as the expansion of the University of Loyolas campus. Besides that philosophical question, Brammeier also has concerns about what happens if a turbine becomes
outmoded. He questions who will deconstruct the wind farm and pay for it. It forces us to face the reality there is no such thing as a zero footprint energy source, he says. Were choosing
whether to put that footprint on the bottom of the Great Lakes. Other groups concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes say that issues ranging from environmental concerns to the
high cost of offshore turbines can be addressed. The Sierra Club, for instance, is in favor of appropriately sited wind developments. Our top organizational priority is climate change and
getting the country off of coal, says Emily Green, Great Lakes program director for the Sierra Club. We need to find solutions, replacement energy, and we feel this will be accomplished
through a mix of things, including wind and solar. We believe offshore wind in some places offers the benefit for utilities to have large-scale wind energy close to load centers in areas where
we are seeking the retirement of coal-fired plants. The Sierra Club is working with the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes
Energy Research Laboratory to gather data to build a smart siting platform. Were trying to put the tools in place before major projects come to the drawing board, so they can be sited
appropriately, Green says. We have the chance to get it right in the Great Lakes. Other barriers to wind turbines in Lake Michigan are the need for technological advancements, the high
cost to build turbines and the economics of energy. Lake Michigans average depth is too deep to accommodate turbines, and ice is a problem. Research is being done to build floating
turbines, to develop turbines that can be anchored at greater depths and to deal with ice, says Pebbles of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. Any successful project will be a balance of cost,
public approval and environmental constraints, she says. For wind developers, the high cost of building offshore wind turbines in Lake Michigan, which cost five to six times more than an
onshore turbine, is too much to overcome, says Kevin Borgia, director of the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition. To say that we would focus on offshore wind that would be several times the cost,
the private sector isnt interested, Borgia says. We should focus our energy on opportunities that are effective. Instability in Illinois wind power market is the biggest thing holding it
back, Borgia says. Deregulation of the states electric market has created a questionable marketplace for power as consumers are buying short-term contracts. As a result, wind farm
developers have difficulty finding financing for their projects because they cant guarantee who will buy their power over more than a few years. Long-term renewable contracts would
stabilize the market and give investors the guarantees they need to support wind projects, Borgia says. Youve got a very complex power market, he says. That uncertain market is the
reason we need reform. If lawmakers were to fix that problem, that would build wind more than anything else. Also at issue is the expected expiration at the end of this year of the federal
Production Tax Credit subsidizing kilowatt hours for utility-scale wind power producers. The credit is in place to make wind energy competitive with alternatives. Wind energy supporters say a
long-term credit, rather than one in jeopardy of losing funding every few years, also would provide stability to the industry. Despite the market uncertainty, Chicago has emerged as a hub in
the wind business. Illinois is ranked seventh in the United States in wind-powered generating capacity with 2,742 megawatts, according to an Illinois State University report. Illinois
membership in regional power grids serving eastern and southern states means there is a demand for power from Illinois, Borgia says. Also, 15 wind companies are based in Chicago, in part
because of easy transportation to wind developments nationally and internationally. The cheap cost of natural gas also serves as a barrier to the growth of wind power in the United States.
Meanwhile, wind development overseas has been spurred by the unreliable conveyance of natural gas and Europes concern about climate change, says Chris Wissemann, CEO of New Jerseybased Fishermens Energy and managing director of Freshwater Wind, which is working to bring an offshore wind project off Ohios Lake Erie shore. He says Europe is 15 to 20 years ahead of
the United States in harnessing wind energy. Wind turbines account for about 94,000 megawatts of electricity, supplying more than 6 percent of the European Unions electricity, according to
the European Wind Energy Association. Of that, 4,000 megawatts come from offshore turbines, the first one built in Denmark in 1991. In the United States, about 3 percent of the nations
electricity is produced by the wind, the U.S. Department of Energy reports. Until the United States needs energy from sources like the wind, it will be difficult for the market to grow unless it
has significant government support. The DOE has launched the Offshore Wind Innovation and Demonstration initiative to reduce the cost of offshore wind energy and to reduce the timeline
for the deployment of offshore wind projects. Streamlining the approval process for projects is one goal, and another is funding. The department is considering grant requests for $180 million
in an effort to get a small project in the water by 2014 and three more projects demonstrating technological advances by the end of 2017. Money will be awarded this fall, says Gilman of the
DOE. Were doing a lot of work figuring out what issues need to be overcome to realize [wind power] opportunity, Gilman says. Job creation is another reason to invest in the industry. In
Illinois, according to a 2011 report from the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University, the 17 biggest wind farms: Created about 13,000 full-time jobs during construction
periods, paying out about $762 million. Support about 600 permanent jobs in rural Illinois, paying about $35 million. Pay out about $10 million to landowners in rent from wind farm
developers. Generate $22 million annually in property taxes and will generate a total economic benefit of $4.1 billion over the life of the projects. Wind energy is an American success
story, says Long of the American Wind Energy Association. He says there are 500 manufacturing facilities supporting the wind industry that employ 30,000 Americans. Its anticipated that
offshore projects will create thousands more. But any growth in offshore wind will be slow-going, says Wissemann, who also lives in Evanston and served on Illinois wind advisory
committee. He predicts the offshore wind industry will develop here much as it has in Europe. Original projects began with the development of small installations of fewer than a dozen
turbines and then grew to the size of a utility like a coal plant with 50 to 200 turbines. Finally, large wind farms were developed. Projects off the Atlantic coast likely will be the first offshore
farms in the United States. Until you build a demonstration, no one really knows what these things are all about, says Wissemann. Projects are not going to pop up like mushrooms. I think
it is a common fear that turbines will be built all over the place. Wissemann estimates Illinois is five years away at the earliest from having a demonstration offshore wind project in Lake
Michigan, with the possibility of a full-scale project five years later. Whatever the timeframe, Illinois intends to do it right, Gabel says. We treasure our lake. We wouldnt want to do anything
that would hurt it. On the other hand, using so many nonrenewable resources is destroying our Earth. We need to find some balance.

Environmental groups hate wind- species loss

Maxwell 12

Veery is a third-year law student at UC Hastings, Wind Energy Development:

Can Wind Energy Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid, West
Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. &
Poly323, lexis , kk
Environmental groups have

also been opposed to wind development ,

particularly in sites inhabited by threatened or endangered species. It seems paradoxical that
environmentalists actively oppose emission-free energy production. This incongruous conflict is driven by

wind [*330] turbines have been known to cause species

mortality, and are often sited in rural areas that offer needed
species habitat. n44 This has caused environmental groups to
pursue lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other environmental
the fact that

protection statutes, in hopes of seeking an injunction against the wind farm construction and operations.
n45 The Coastal Habitat Alliance sued a Texas wind developer in 2007, demanding an injunction to halt
construction on a wind project adjoining the Laguna Madre, an environmentally sensitive bay between the
Texas mainland and Padre Island. n46 The Coastal Habitat Alliance alleged that the defendant developer
impinged its rights under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal
Management Program by not holding public hearings or conducting appropriate environmental review on
the wind farm. n47 A federal court dismissed the case, holding the statutes did not confer a right of action
on private parties. n48 However, the case drew attention to the emerging issue of wind turbine siting in
ecologically fragile areas. In West Virginia, environmental plaintiffs were successful in halting operations
of a wind farm sited in an area home to endangered Indiana bats. n49 After exhaustive presentations by
expert witnesses, the federal court found, "there is a virtual certainty that Indiana bats will be harmed,
wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project, in violation of section 9 of the ESA ...." n50 The
court held that until the developer undergoes the Incidental Take Permitting process through the Fish and
Wildlife Service, no new turbines could be approved by the agencies or constructed for the project. n51
The Beech Ridge case was the first wind farm conflict decided under the Endangered Species Act, and
demonstrates the need for federal agencies to actively oversee the development of wind farms. n52 In
order to avoid costly litigation at every turn, the Beech Ridge holding shows that the myriad of federal
agencies involved in approving wind farms must develop comprehensive standardized siting and
permitting criteria. While the Fish [*331] and Wildlife Service has been spearheading a collaborative effort
to develop wind farm guidelines, only draft voluntary siting guidelines have been published. n53 The two
most noteworthy examples of environmental groups opposing wind farms, differ dramatically in terms of
location, technology, rationale of opposition, and timing. However, in both cases the wind developer has
continued to press forward with development and operations. The first case involves the Altamont Pass,
located just east of the San Francisco Bay Area, which was a massive experiment in wind energy begun in
the 1970s. n54 The second case involves the Cape Wind project, which is more modest in size, but located
in a high-visibility area of Nantucket Sound. n55 The projects are instructive as to the broad range of
claims opponents have levied against wind farms. Both cases have directly and indirectly driven a host of
solutions to the environmental and local problems generated by wind farms.

Plan-Specific Link: Offshore Wind Energy [1/1]

( ) Offshore wind energy is unpopular it gets drawn into a larger
fight over fossil fuels versus alternative energy
PEW 2012
[The Pew Research Group, a non-partisan political fact tank. As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for
Oil and Gas Production Grows 3/19/12 http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-pricespinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/]

Over the past year, there has been an increase in the percentage of Republicans,
particularly conservative Republicans, who view the expansion of exploration and
production of oil, coal and natural gas as a more important priority for addressing the
nations energy supply than the development of alternative energy sources.
Conservative Republicans now prioritize traditional energy sources over alternative

sources by a 65% to 26% margin; a year ago they were divided (47% oil, coal, natural
gas vs. 43% alternative energy). But increasing numbers in other groups including
Westerners and older Americans also prioritize the development of energy from
traditional sources.

Offshore Wind Unpopular

Offshore wind projects are unpopular- splits
environmental groups who would usually support wind
power
Firestone and Kempton 2005 [Jeremy Firestone and Willett Kempton
College of Marine Studies University of Delaware To be presented at
Copenhagen Offshore Wind 2005 26-28 October 2005 Public Opinion
about Large Offshore Wind Power: Underlying Factors
http://wind.nrel.gov/public/SeaCon/Proceedings/Copenhagen.Offshore.Wind.2
005/documents/papers/Poster/Firestone_Kempton_PublicOpinionaboutlargeoff
shorewin.pdf]
A proposal has been submitted to the US Federal Government, and to the
Commonwealth

install

of Massachusetts, by a private company, Cape Wind Associates.2 They propose to

130 wind turbines in 62 Km2 (24 square miles) of Nantucket Sound. It

plans to use General Electrics 3.6s, designed exclusively for offshore use. Mounted, they would rise 128
meters from sea level to top blade tip (420 feet, or about 40 stories) and their nameplate electrical
output is 3.6 MW. This development is projected to generate a peak power of 420 MW, adding up to
1,491,384 MW hours of electricity per year, which is about 3/4 the electrical needs of Cape Cod, or 1/10
of the demand of the entire state of Massachusetts (Cape Wind 2004a).3 The developer states that
Nantucket Sound is a highly favorable site for wind development, arguably the best in the east coast
(strong steady winds, close to power lines on shore, shallow water, protected from high waves, and

this proposal has generated a

vigorous local opposition movement, focused around the Alliance to
Protect Nantucket Sound (an organization specifically created to oppose the development).
The Alliance seems to have both popular support and a financially
strong core. In 2003 it received $1.7 million from 2,891 individuals, with just 56 of them giving
minimal conflicts with transportation systems).

But

$1.3 million of that; the top four individuals gave over $100,000 each, including a loan that was forgiven
(Zindler 2004). A similar pattern with a small number of large and very large donations was seen in 2002
(Zindler 2003). Opposition is also politically well connected , with declared
opponents including the Editorial page of the Cape Cod Times, US Sen. Ted Kennedy, U.S. Rep. William
Delahunt, several state legislators, and the Massachusetts Governor and Attorney General. The

opposition comes primarily from those who consider themselves

environmentalists. For example, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sounds web site says: The
Alliance is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to long-term preservation of

various opponents mostly

support wind power in general, and split on whether they oppose
wind power anywhere in the ocean. Opposition from those who
consider themselves environmentalists has been seen in other wind
projects (Bosley and Bosley 1988; Walker 1995; Krohn and Damborg 1999; Wolsink 2000).
Nantucket Sound (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 2004). The

NIMBY groups still oppose despite offshore nature

Maiorino 2013 [Al Maiorino President, Public Strategy Group Energy
Manager Today May 6, 2013 Placing Wind Farms Offshore Doesnt Deter
Opposition http://www.energymanagertoday.com/placing-wind-farmsoffshore-doesnt-deter-opposition-091615/]
Offshore wind projects, though they are environmentally friendly and
create electricity through wind, still face opposition from NIMBY (not in
my backyard) groups. Many offshore wind projects have and still are
facing opposition today.

Offshore wind is highly controversial- multiple reasons

Madsen 2010 [Nancy Madsen Times Staff Writer March 4, 2010 Crowds

oppose offshore wind

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100304/NEWS03/303049965]
PULASKI Opponents of a proposal for offshore wind power projects
raised a rallying cry at a meeting Wednesday night at the H. Douglas Barclay
Courthouse. About 80 people from Oswego, Jefferson and Wayne counties attended the meeting
organized by the Joint Commission for the Preservation of Lake Ontario Communities, a coalition blessed by

members of the public

gave economics, wildlife and viewshed as reasons to oppose the New
the boards of legislators in Jefferson and Oswego counties. The

York Power Authority's inclusion of eastern Lake Ontario as a possible site for turbines.

Drilling unpopular support is on the decline

Pew Research 13 (September 26, Continued Support for Keystone XL
Pipeline http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/26/continued-support-forkeystone-xl-pipeline/#energy-boom)
The share of Americans citing energy issues as a top priority was
unchanged from last year at 45%, down from a high of 60% in 2009, according to a
survey conducted Jan. 15-19. Partisan differences about the importance of the
issue were small. The recent energy boom in the U.S. has not registered widely with the public.

Our September 2013 survey found that only 48% correctly say that U.S. energy production is up in recent
years. But there is no indication that awareness of the nations growing energy production is related to

Two-thirds or more of Americans favor government

policies to require better fuel efficiency more funding for alternative
energy research and more spending on mass transit. A smaller
majority supports more offshore oil and gas drilling. By nearly three-to-one
energy policy attitudes.

(73% to 25%), the public supports requiring better vehicle fuel efficiency, according our September 2013
survey. An identical percentage (73%) favors federal funding for alternative energy research, while twothirds (67%) back more spending on mass transit. A majority ( 58%)

also favors more

offshore oil and gas drilling. That is lower than last year, when 65%
supported more offshore oil and gas drilling.

Drilling unpopular deepwater horizon destroyed dem

support for offshore drilling
Nelson 10 (July 22, Josh, political commenter at FireDogLake, Rasmussen:
Support For Offshore Drilling Reaches New Low
http://my.firedoglake.com/joshnelson/2010/07/22/rasmussen-support-foroffshore-drilling-reaches-new-low/)
New data shows that support for offshore drilling has reached its
lowest level ever in Rasmussens latest polling. Heres how the GOPfriendly pollster** frames the latest data (emphasis mine): With the
deepwater oil leak apparently capped after three months of gushing into the Gulf of Mexico,
support for both offshore oil drilling and drilling further out in
deepwater remains largely unchanged. Most voters also remain
concerned about the potential environmental impact of new drilling.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. Voters now believe offshore oil
drilling should be allowed, while 26% oppose it. One-in-five voters (19%) are undecided. Thats down from
60% last month. Since the oil rig explosion that caused the massive oil leak, support for offshore drilling
has ranged from 56% to 64%. Predictably, Rasmussen leaves most of the useful information out of their

In their polling immediately prior to the rig explosion in the

Gulf, 72% of likely voters supported offshore drilling. Even with
Rasmussens skewed likely voter model, this represents a 16% shift
in just 11 weeks. The current level of support among likely voters,
analysis.

56%, is the lowest ever recorded by Rasmussen for this question .

Moreover, support among Democrats for offshore drilling has dropped
from 54% in early April to just 29% in the latest poll . Support among
Republicans remains relatively flat, down just 4%. GOP support for offshore drilling, at
82%, is actually up 8% from its low point in late May.

GOP Opposition
Wind energy is unpopular key oil lobbies and Republican
lawmakers oppose.
Martin, Bloomberg News, 13
[Christopher, 4-23-14, Bloomberg News, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/u-s-states-turn-againstrenewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]

Killing support for renewable-energy policies threatens sales at

companies from wind-turbine makers General Electric Co (GE). and
Siemens AG (SIE) to SolarCity Corp. (SCTY), the San Mateo, California-based
rooftop energy developer.
The push at the state level replicates efforts in Washington.
Opposition from Republican lawmakers delayed the extension of a
federal tax credit for wind power, prompting Vestas, the biggest
turbine maker after GE, to fire 10 percent of its workforce at two
Colorado factories.
There havent been any outright repeals yet, but weve seen some
watering-down, said Justin Barnes, senior policy analyst at the North
Carolina Solar Center. Activity against renewable portfolio standards
has been increasing in the past year. Their arguments are mostly on
cost.
The Raleigh, North Carolina-based research group is supported by the Energy
Department and operates the DSIRE database of state incentives.

Offshore wind unpopular with Republicans concerns

about picking winners and losers
Dlouhy, Houston Chronicle, 13

[Jennifer A., 6-4-13, Fuel Fix, Republicans attack landmark offshore wind
power plan, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/06/04/feds-to-unveil-details-on-firstfederal-offshore-wind-auction/, accessed 7-7-14, AAZ]
The Interior Department unveiled details for the nations first-ever
federal sale of offshore wind energy leases on Tuesday, even as
Republican lawmakers complain the approach is misguided.
Federal officials had already announced plans to sell wind leases off the
Atlantic Coast this year, but the sale package released Tuesday firmly
schedules the auction for July 31 and sheds more light on the terms of those
leases.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the sale could be a harbinger of things to
come.
Were optimistic with this lease sale well see some action, Jewell told
reporters on an unrelated conference call on Monday. If there is good
interest in this one, then I think you will have this happening on a consistent
basis.

Jewells optimism is borne in part from her experience in the private

sector. Jewell was CEO of Recreational Equipment Inc., while the chain of
retail stores made deals to buy renewable energy to offset its carbon
emissions. We actively pursued the purchase of wind energy and solar
energy as well, Jewell said. There is demand out there for companies that
are looking to reduce their carbon footprint.
But Jewell stopped short of predicting her potentially four-year
tenure at Interior will see commercial offshore wind developments, which
face financial as well as structural hurdles. The projects are massive,
expensive and tough to finance.
It will really be up to industry to decide the time frame under which they
choose to develop wind energy resources, Jewell said. What were really
doing at the Department of Interior is giving people an opportunity to use
these resources. We certainly dont want to be a roadblock to them being in
production in four years, if it makes sense to the community.
The market will dictate, she added. We certainly wont get in the way.
But Republicans say that approach stands in sharp contrast to the
Obama administrations handling of traditional energy development
in other coastal areas.
A five-year plan for selling offshore oil and gas leases around the U.S. does
not include any auctions along the East Coast, including an area off Virginia
where an auction was previously planned. That Virginia lease sale was
canceled after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, with Interior officials
citing Defense Department concerns about interfering with operations in the
area as a major factor.
Legislation pending in the House would force the the Obama administration
to sell offshore drilling leases off the coast of Virginia. And on Thursday, the
House Natural Resources Committee is set to hold a hearing on legislation by
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., that would force the Interior Department to redo
its five-year oil and gas lease sale schedule, to include Atlantic areas.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., on Tuesday renewed his request for
economic data about the potential revenue from a wind lease sale,
compared to the value of leasing similar acreage for oil and gas development.
He and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., previously asked Interior for
the information seven months ago.
Vitter accused the administration of picking energy industry
winners and losers by blessing the offshore wind sale while
forestalling oil and gas development in the same Atlantic waters.
While they do everything they can to advantage renewable energy
production, they ignore the benefits that traditional energy
provides, Vitter said in a news release. The federal government
receives significant revenue from royalties for offshore oil and gas
production in the form of rents, royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Can the
same be said for any potential offshore wind project?

GOP Opposition to Tax Incentives

Recent tax incentives and breaks are opposed by House
Democrats causes fights
Rubin, Bloomberg News, 14

[Richard, 4-29-14, Bloomberg Business Week, Business Tax Breaks of $310

Billion Advance After Squabble (2),
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-29/business-tax-breaks-of-310billion-spark-partisan-squabble, accessed 7-9-14, AAZ]
The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee approved $310 billion of
tax breaks, as Republicans defeated Democratic objections to the
plans budgetary costs.
The tax breaks, many of which benefit companies such as Intel Corp.
(INTC:US) and General Electric Co. (GE:US), have bipartisan support. How
and whether to offset their cost remains an area of dispute, which
prompted some Democrats to vote against bills they cosponsored
earlier this month.
The Republicans proposal would make the tax benefits permanent, ending
the lapse-and-revive cycle that has persisted for years. The six breaks whose
extension was approved today and dozens of others expired Dec. 31. The
move separates some of the breaks from Republicans broader goal of
revamping the U.S. tax code.
We have to start somewhere, said Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican. Were starting with bills that have had
bipartisan sponsors.
Democrats argued that the Republican plan is fiscally irresponsible,
because it doesnt include offsetting spending cuts or tax increases, and
unfair as Republicans maintain that the cost of extending unemployment
benefits should be covered.
Democrats also complained about the uncertain fate of other tax
breaks, such as those for hiring workers from disadvantaged groups
and installing wind turbines.
Serious Understatement
To say that Republican action today is hypocritical is a serious
understatement, said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the
top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats didnt offer specific proposals for offsetting the costs. In the past,
they have supported higher taxes for oil companies and private equity
managers to pay for extensions. The provisions have repeatedly been
extended without those revenue-raising items attached, most recently in
January 2013.
Camp said the committee would consider other expired provisions later this
year. He wouldnt say which ones he supports making permanent; among the
largest are bonus depreciation for capital expenses and the ability to deduct
state sales taxes.
This is just the beginning of doing a thorough, methodical review, said
Camp, who is retiring from Congress when this term ends.

The panel voted 22-12 today to endorse the permanent extension of the
research credit, which has existed since 1981 and has never been made
permanent.

Tax incentives are unpopular Republicans view it as a

trade off with other industries
Hanson, Americans for Prosperity Federal Issue Campaign
Manager, 14
[Christine H., 6-18-14, Forbes, Support For Wind Subsidies Divides
Republicans, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/06/18/support-forwind-subsidies-divides-republicans/, accessed 7-9-14, AAZ]

In arguing that that tax credits are needed to boost employment in the
wind industry, proponents overlook what the rest of the economy
gives up in exchange for them. In reality the PTC is a net jobs loserit
distracts labor and capital away from more efficient areas in the
economy and slows over all growth. Wind turbine makers may be able to
plump up their payrollsjust as any tax handout will boost employment in a
targeted industrybut the rest of the economy suffers as a result. Any
boost in employment among wind turbine makers is inherently temporary.
Compared to other forms of electricity generation, wind power is far from cost
competitive. The wind PTC is an outrageously large subsidy, leading to
giant disruptions in the energy market. At $23 per megawatt-hour, the
PTC is worth half (and sometimes even more) of the entire wholesale price of
electricity in many parts of the country. In fact, the PTC is so lavish and anticost-competitive that wind power producers often bid negative prices into
electrical grid, just so they can collect the subsidy. They literally pay utilities
to take their electricity.
Lawmakers should oppose resurrecting this tax break for wind
energy because its costly, and increasingly sothe PTC cost $12 billion
in 2014, up from a historical average of $5 billion per year.
In practice, targeted subsidies are a tried-and-terrible way to develop new
energy sources, Under President Obamas direction, the federal government
has tried to prop up its favorite energy sources with targeted subsidiestax
credits, grants, loan guarantees, state-based mandates, etc.with little to
show besides slower economic growth. Too many of these pet projects have
gone bankrupt and belly-up, sticking taxpayers with the bill, and failing to get
the U.S. any closer to its energy goals.
Even Warren Buffett readily admits that wind energy is a terrible investment
[O]n wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. Thats
the only reason to build them. They dont make sense without the tax credit.
At its core, the wind PTC is no different than these green energy boondoggles
like Solyndra and its successors. It represents exactly the kind of
government meddling in the economy that Republicans campaign
against. Republicans in particular should live up to their stated
principles of free markets and level playing fields by opposing
extending the PTC.

Lobby Opposition
Powerful oil coal and gas company Koch Industries
enlisted networks to campaign against wind energy
Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists news director, 13

(Elliott, 12-9-13, The Huffington Post, The Koch Brothers Are Still Trying to
Break Wind, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothersare-sti_b_4396033.html, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
As Congress dithers for the umpteenth time over extending a key subsidy for
wind energy, the industry once again is up in the air. Called
the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing
field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for
financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing
electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as
quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free
energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who
would be against renewing wind's tax credit?
The Koch brothers, that's who.
Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and
gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive
network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill
to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. Never mind the
fact that the oil and gas industry has averaged four times what the wind tax
credit is worth in federal tax breaks and subsidies annually for the last 95
years.
The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of
fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas)
sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire.
Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by
the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of
Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Kochfunded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad
campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of
states actually benefit from the subsidy.
Malcolm Gladwell didn't include this battle in his new book David and
Goliath because, given the odds, it's more like Bambi versus Godzilla.

Powerful oil lobby and Koch brothers lobby to block wind

Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists news director, 13

(Elliott, 12-9-13, The Huffington Post, The Koch Brothers Are Still Trying to
Break Wind, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothersare-sti_b_4396033.html, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
The Kochs' Man in Congress
The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle
the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader.
Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already

attracted more than $5 billion in wind industry investment, and last year wind
generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has
broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran
and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans.
Pompeo, who has been in Congress since only 2011, would argue that
he's against all energy tax credits. For the second year in a row, he has
introduced a bill that would eliminate tax breaks that benefit oil, natural gas,
coal, nuclear, electric vehicles, alternative fuels, solar and wind, including the
PTC, which gives wind developers a tax credit of 2.3 cents for each kilowatthour of electricity they produce.
But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would
severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas
and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance,
the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated
depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other
tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about $12.5 billion to the oil
and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012
Congressional Research Service report.
Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch
Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of
his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his
biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given
him $200,000, more than four times what his second highest contributor
kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among
Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie
Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita.
What about the other 51 House members who signed Pompeo's
letter? As it turns out, 65 percent of them received contributions from
Koch Industries during the last two or three campaign cycles,
according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan
Center for Responsive Politics. A quarter of them, meanwhile, cashed checks
from ExxonMobil. And except for two congressmen who didn't take any
energy industry money, the signatories received sizable contributions from a
number of other corporations that compete with wind, including coal barons
Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources; oil and gas giants Chesapeake
Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy; and Exelon, which owns
the most nuclear reactors in the country.
Americans for (Koch) Prosperity Weighs In
Pompeo's letter came on the heels of a letter from the Kochs'
flagship advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, calling for Congress
to kill the PTC. AFP's letter, which was signed by 102 organizations, claims
that "the wind industry has very little to show after 20 years of
preferential tax treatment" and declares that "Americans deserve
energy solutions that can make it on their own in the marketplace -not ones that need to be propped up by government indefinitely."
Is that right? Little to show? Preferential tax treatment?
In fact, until Congress left the wind industry hanging late last year, it
had been doing quite well. Even with a deep recession and slow recovery,
over the previous five years -- with the help of the PTC, stimulus spending
and state renewable electricity standards -- the industry doubled its

electricity output, employment and private investment. In 2012, domestic

manufacturers produced roughly 72 percent of the wind turbine equipment
erected across the country -- nearly triple the percentage in 2006 -- and more
than 13,000 megawatts of new wind generation capacity was installed. By
the end of last year, there were enough wind turbines to power 15
million typical American homes -- without toxic pollutants or carbon
emissions.
But AFP's complaint that the wind industry has been on the dole far too long
is even more galling. What about the oil and gas industry? It's been feeding
at the federal trough since 1918! On average, the industry has benefited from
$4.86 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in today's dollars every year since
then, according to a 2011 study by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm.
Renewable energy technologies, meanwhile, averaged only $370 million a
year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009. The 2009 stimulus package did
provide $21 billion for wind, solar and other renewables, but that support
barely begins to balance the scales that have tilted toward nuclear power for
more than 50 years, oil and gas for 95 years, and coal for more than two
centuries.
So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party
affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The
other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there
are a few that have attractedattention over the years for their contrarian
views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are
awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the
Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom
Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage
Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family
foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and
gas industry's premier trade association.
The Institute for Energy Research's Questionable Research
On December 3, the Institute for Energy Research and its political arm, the
American Energy Alliance, sponsored what they dubbed the "wind welfare"
summit in Washington, D.C., featuring IER founder and CEO Robert Bradley
Jr., a Koch network veteran. AEA announced it would spend $40,000 on print
and digital ads calling for an end to the PTC and is flying in anti-PTC
advocates for meetings on Capitol Hill.
Bradley presumably highlighted the findings of a report IER released the day
before claiming that a small number of states with wind resources -- Iowa,
North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas -- are reaping the benefits of the PTC
while 30 states and the District of Columbia are "losing millions" to fund it.
The report's findings, however, don't hold up to scrutiny. Mike Jacobs, a senior
energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out in a
recent blog that IER ignored the fact that a number of the states it identified
as "net payers" are home to wind industry manufacturing facilities. There are
62 companies in Ohio making turbine components, for example, 40 in
Michigan and 21 in California. Jacobs also discovered that IER downplayed the
fact that "the PTC benefits consumers where wind-generated electricity adds
to the supply and lowers the price of electricity, landowners who receive
lease payments from the wind turbines, and local communities that collect
tax payments on installed wind farms."

Jeff Spross, blogging on the Center for American

Progress' ThinkProgress website, alsochided IER, pointing out that most
industries are not equally distributed across the country. "The oil and gas
industries, for instance, benefit from a wealth of federal tax carve-outs," he
wrote, "but the economic activity they generate is concentrated in just a few
key states."
In other words, it's disingenuous to single out the wind industry.
Twisting in the Wind
While Congress has generously provided the fossil-fuel and nuclearenergy industries a number of permanent subsidies, it has typically
granted the wind industry the PTC on a short-term basis and then
wavered over renewing it. Last year the PTC expired on December 31, but
as part of the "fiscal cliff" budget deal the next day, Congress extended it for
the seventh time since it debuted in 1992 -- for only one year.
This uncertainty over the PTC's status has put wind developers at a
distinct disadvantage, making it difficult to attract investors and
plan ahead. Last year's cliffhanger, for example, definitely did a number on
the industry. Wind farm construction has fallen off dramatically
compared with 2012: Only one utility-scale wind turbine was installed in
the first six months of this year. Business picked up somewhat in the third
quarter, with 68.3 megawatts installed, according to the American Wind
Energy Association, but that's far below the average of more than 1,000
megawatts that the industry constructed in most quarters in recent years.
Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm,
Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slowwalking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous.
Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by
2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, according to the U.S.
Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. Last year, it published
a report that concluded today's commercially available renewable
technologies could easily generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050, with
nearly half coming from wind. If the Koch brothers and their allies have their
way, however, it likely will take a lot longer to get there -- and it will cost a
hell of a lot more.

Public Opposition
Offshore wind is unpopular key bureaucratic
impediments, land owners, loss of confidence, lack of
technology
Salih, Roosevelt Institute's Columbia Chapter,
Environment leader, 7/2/14
[Swara, 7-2-14, Huffington Post, Will Offshore Wind Pick up the
Speed?, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/will-offshore-wind-picku_b_5549967.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
Constructing any sort of energy infrastructure is expensive and lengthy, and
the construction of these facilities and their maintenance are highly
expensive (which the PTC helps to alleviate), but analysts have said that
offshore wind's benefits could ultimately outweigh the costs. What's
kept it from taking off? It appears to be an issue with the permitting
process for the plants themselves. While there is a vested private and public
interest in building the facilities, firms constantly run into bureaucratic red
tape that hinders their construction. The permitting process for wind farms
can take two years or longer to complete, and so the uncertainty of the tax
credit's extension often makes developers hesitate to begin. With no
infrastructure in place for offshore wind farms, this makes receiving permits
an exceedingly difficult task. Infrastructure is also expensive to construct,
putting the price of a facility like Cape Wind in Massachusetts in the range of
$2-3 billion, which makes permitting all the more less likely.
But there have been various state-level efforts at fostering offshore
wind energy industries. In 2010, Governor Chris Christie signed the
bipartisan Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, which established an
offshore wind renewable energy certificate (OREC) program to make financial
assistance and tax credits available to businesses that could build the
necessary infrastructure. However, projects have encountered various
bureaucratic impediments. This past March, the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities (BPU) halted the construction of Fishermen's Energy,
despite the project's guarantee of a $47 million federal grant from the DOE.
The plant would need to be 2.8 miles off the coast of Atlantic City, and would
cost a total of $188 million while providing 25 MW of electricity, enough to
power 10,000 homes. The BPU cited concerns that household payers
would end up paying "hundreds of millions of dollars" for power and
that the federal grants were "unsecured." This past May, however,
Fishermen's Energy received the federal grant, prompting them to appeal to
the BPU to overturn their previous decision. Some suspect that the BPU has
put less confidence in renewable utilities due to Chris Christie's faltering
support for them, ironic considering he spearheaded the bipartisan legislation
in 2010.
Dominion Virginia was more fortunate, and bought a lease for 113,000 acres
last September from the Department of the Interior (DOI), aiming to provide
energy to around 700,000 homes. However, Dominion has little intention of
using all this acreage any time soon, with the cost of offshore wind

remaining three times as expensive as natural gas (a key commodity of

Dominion). Dominion's senior vice president for alternative energy solutions
Mary Doswell is on record saying that though offshore wind is a "large scale,
sustainable resource," Dominion would need to "work on the cost," and that
the company is waiting on "technological advances" that would make
construction cheaper. Yet they are still working on two 6 MW offshore
turbines, for which they have also received a $47 million grant from the DOE.
These turbines would be 24 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, and
Dominion says that with regulatory approval, they could be operation by
2017 and provide electricity to 3,000 homes.
Cape Wind Associates LLC proposed their project for a large-scale
facility of 130 turbines off the coast of Cape Cod in 2001, and the firm only
received its permit in October 2010, following lengthy environmental reviews
and inspections. The projected total capacity of the project is 468 MW, and is
expected to generate 1600 gigawatt-hours/year. The Bureau of Ocean
Management (BOEM) projects that this could generate enough power for tens
of thousands of homes in Massachusetts. Despite these purported
advantages the project has faced opposition from wealthy
homeowners who claim it would ruin their views, businesses that
fear its power rate increases, and fishermen who say it would
interfere with their catches. Among these wealthy homeowners is William
Koch, who has poured millions of dollars into derailing the project, allegedly
to protect the view from his waterfront estate. However, Cape Wind is
readying its ocean construction in 2015 and plans to start distributing power
by 2016, having received nearly $1 billion in loans from Danish and Japanese
companies. Unlike Dominion and Fishermen's Energy, it has not received a
grant from the DOE, though it hopes to receive a $500 million loan guarantee
from the department soon.

Link Offshore Wind General

Offshore wind costs PC Obama pushes despite
controversy
Todd Sperry, CNN correspondent, 8-16-2012 Wind farm gets US approval
despite controversy http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farmfaa/index.html DA: 6/8/14

A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political
and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape
Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals
were challenged in court, including a ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The

Obama administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in
April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family

Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten
wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down
property values. The administration has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as
a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by
congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are
politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs
that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy companies or
projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape
Wind as part of a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote President Barack
Obama last week saying that White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known"
compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power

and that the FAA had been under political pressure to approve it.

Plan perceived as picking winners triggers GOP backlash

and spills over to new controversy over offshore drilling
Zack Coleman, E2 Wire THE HILLs Environment and Energy Blog, 11-92012, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267041-gop-senators-pressinterior-on-offshore-wind-deal DA: 6/11/14

GOP senators accuse Interior of playing favorites in offshore wind

deal Two GOP senators are accusing the Interior Department of playing favorites by offering Atlantic
waters for wind farms but not oil and gas development. At issue is a
lease for developing commercial wind power in federal waters off the
Delaware coast. The area in question is off limits to oil-and-gas drillers in President Obamas fiveyear offshore drilling plan. GOP Sens. David Vitter (La.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) sent a letter Friday
to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to evaluate the economics of the
potential wind farm against a comparably sized oil-and-gas deal . The
administration has a habit of picking energy-industry winners and
losers, and we want an explanation. Secretary Salazar should at least be able to defend the
economics of the lease sale for wind energy. For example, the federal government receives
significant revenue from royalties for offshore oil and gas production
in the form of rents, royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Can the same be said for this offshore
wind project? Vitter said in a Friday statement. The administration has cited
environmental reasons for the restriction on Atlantic and Pacific offshore
drilling. It says its plan still permits exploration for 75 percent of identified reserves. Obama revised his offshore
drilling plan following the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. When Interior released the administration's final leasing

Republicans in both the

House and the Senate have criticized Interior for its handling of
plan in June, it described the blueprint as "responsible" and "cautious."

offshore drilling

in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze

GOP lawmakers
say Obama's five-year offshore plan is too limited. They want to open the
Atlantic and Pacific to drilling, saying drillers could unlock previously undiscovered reserves.
Vitter and Alexander said increasing offshore oil-and-gas leases
would generate new revenue that could help pay down the deficit.
in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain that rules instituted since then are overly burdensome.

They said oil and gas firms would pay handsomely for the right to explore those areas, and noted they would owe federal

The senators wanted to compare that to what

Interior offered NRG Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC for the wind lease sale.
royalties on anything they dredge up.

Offshore wind causes controversy GOP and

environmentalists backlash to Obama push
Darrell Delamaide is a writer, editor and journalist with more than 30

years' experience. He is the author of three books and has written for
magazines, newspapers, and online media. A specialist in business and
finance, he lived in Europe for many years, has traveled widely, and has a
master's degree from Columbia University's School of International and Public
Affairs. 4-30-2010 U.S. Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not
End Controversy http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.Approval-Of-Cape-Cod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html
DA: 6/8/14
Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of
offshore wind project in the country. But it is sure to
generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from
environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who
The

130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first

are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their
closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed the project because the turbines will be visible from
the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston
announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that the decision is final and that the administration is confident it can withstand the court challenges that

The project has been under review for nearly 10 years.

are sure to come.

There are
about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of Chesapeake Bay. A number of
northern European countries are already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is expected to begin
generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It will provide sufficient electricity for three-quarters of
the 225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the

sites on the Cape, was opposed by Patrick and governors

Environmentalists oppose the
project because it interferes with habitats of numerous marine animals and birds, and because of
historical value of the Kennedy compound and other

from Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland.
its visual impact on the scenery.

Offshore wind funding causes controversy GOP budget

conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center

for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,

economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget

conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe
most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But

fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing

Republicans

these necessary services to the American people, congressional

must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and
spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and

Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.

will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer

Impact on

oceans

places to hunt, fish, and relax.

public lands and
The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in
September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6
percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense
function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide
much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where
appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services
or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts
the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily
assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the
agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But
sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If
this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts,
tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather
prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive
from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the
Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate
as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S.
models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a
week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction
capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to
replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement
satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online.
During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and
Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially
causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development

of our

Energy development is an important

oceans

and legitimate use

lands and
. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore)
provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States

Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,

studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer
comes from federal lands and waters.

significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,

ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on

the Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency
manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development
of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent
public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development,

progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Link Offshore Wind Tax Credit

Wind incentives drain PC causes massive congressional
budget fight
Hannah Northey, E&E reporter, E & E News, 2-2-2012 lexis
the issue of whether Congress should extend clean energy
tax credits for wind producers is going to be a thorny issue in such a
tight budgetary environment. "How we're going to allow for
continuation or extension, whether it's [production tax credit] or
otherwise, that's going to be subject of great debate going forward," she said.
Murkowski said

"I happen to think in many of these areas, these have been exceptionally helpful for us, and I'd like to see
the extensions."

Wind incentives drain PC the issue is politicized, it can

barely get enough congressional support and only as rider
to other bills
Jennifer Jacobs and Jason Noble, Des Moines Register, 8-15-2012 Wind
credit likely to stay http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=3110
DA: 6/5/14
All the huff and puff on the campaign trail in Iowa aside, it's likely that the wind
energy tax credit will pass this fall, Iowans who follow the issue say. It's a topic that Iowa voters
typically don't bring up. But President Barack Obama loves to talk about it because it gives him an opening to bash GOP rival Mitt Romney for
being opposed to an incentive that all of Iowa's top politicians consider important. "If he really wants to learn something about wind," Obama
said Tuesday, "all he's got to do is pay attention to what you've been doing here in Iowa." Obama is keeping up a drumbeat on the issue at
every campaign stop. At a wind farm in Haverhill on Tuesday, he said the tax credits help create jobs while the rest of the country benefits

congressional delegation is cautiously optimistic

the wind production tax credit will pass after the Nov. 6 elections as
part of a larger bill, staffers told The Des Moines Register on Tuesday. All seven in the delegation support the tax credit.
But Republican political operatives in Iowa say Obama has politicized the
issue. They say he's trying to manufacture an issue where there isn't
one - and that he's just trying to distract from his own record on jobs
and the economy. The debate on the campaign trail highlights that presidential candidates sometimes play up differences
from "clean American energy." Iowa's

that are real, but may not have real effect on any legislation. Action on the tax credit won't happen before the election, aides for Iowa's

After Nov. 6, when there's more clarity to the political landscape, language is
likely to get tacked onto a bigger bill and squeak through amid
debate about the farm bill and George W. Bush-era tax cuts, staffers said.
congressional delegation said.

1nc Plan is Unpopular

Plans massively unpopulartriggers public and
Congressional backlashtied into the broader green
energy debate
Sperry 12 Todd is a writer for CNN. Wind farm gets US approval despite
controversy, Aug 16, http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farmfaa/index.html
A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has
generated fierce political and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state
Washington (CNN) --

regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of
its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain

Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a

ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading
opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The Obama
conditions.

administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more
than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included
the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port.

Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would
threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents
also fear it will drive down property values. The administration has pushed a
"green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil
imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by congressional
Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven.
125 years of wind power

They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans

The
Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is
investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of a broader
review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration.
and other aid to alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations.

2NCOffshore Wind Links

Offshore wind empirically triggers massive controversy
DiMugno 12 Laura is a writer for North American Wind Power. With latest
FAA ruling, is it full steam ahead for Cape Wind? Aug 17, http://www.windwatch.org/news/2012/08/17/with-latest-faa-ruling-is-it-full-steam-ahead-forcape-wind/
it remains to be seen whether the controversy surrounding
the proposed offshore wind farm will finally come to a close . Several groups
still oppose the projectthe most vocal of which has been APNSand aviation concerns are only
Despite this latest decision,

one component of their argument against Cape Wind. Recently, APNS went so far as to claim that there

Cape Wind continues to face serious

and growing problems, with investigations being launched into the projects
political maneuvering, four federal lawsuits pending, and a recent federal
court decision to revoke Cape Winds aviation safety permit , the group stated on its
were political motivations behind the FAAs decision.

website. (The last claim has been negated with this latest FAA decision.)

Obama will get blame for the plan and it will sap capital
Delamaide 10 Darrell is a writer at Oil Price.com [U.S. Approval of Cape
Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy, April 30,
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-Approval-Of-CapeCod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html]
Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which
calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first offshore wind
project in the country. The announcement Wednesday was not a complete surprise after President
The

Barack Obama on Tuesday toured the factory in Iowa that will supply the blades for the Cape Wind

it is sure to generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by

everyone from environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod
residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the
turbines. But

horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most
distant.

Plan causes controversyempirically provenGOP will

accuse Obama of cheating
Colman 12 Zack is a writer for The Hill. Long-delayed offshore wind farm

gets approval despite political pushback, 8/16, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/e2-wire/243979-offshore-wind-farm-gets-approval-despite-politicalpushback

A large proposed wind farm off the Massachusetts coast gained regulatory
approval Wednesday amid complaints from GOP lawmakers that the White House
inappropriately pushed for its acceptance. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
determined the 130-turbine Cape Wind project, located in the Nantucket Sound, posed no danger to air
travel. The project has been in the planning process for more than a decade. This FAA Determination of
No Hazard is extremely robust, comprehensive and complete, Mark Rodgers, spokesman for Cape Wind,
told The Hill on Thursday. We are pleased that the FAA was able to ignore political pressure of project
opponents and that they did their job in a professional way reaching the same decision they have on three
other occasions including twice under the Bush Administration to approve this project. Rodgers said the
FAA ruling means Cape Wind is now fully permitted. He noted it is the only U.S. offshore wind farm with
federal and state approval, a commercial lease and a construction and operations plan. It also has power
purchase agreements with Massachusetts electric utilities. But whether FAAs ruling quiets some

GOP

lawmakers is uncertain. They want to investigate possible administration pressure

on the agency to approve the project despite safety concerns from some FAA employees.
Republicans Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman
Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Cliff Stearns (Fla.), a subcommittee chairman on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, all have called for a probe of Cape Wind. They say internal FAA documents show hesitancy

lawmakers allege the

Obama administration used its influence to hush those fears.
about the projects ability to avoid interfering with low-flying planes. The

Offshore wind funding causes controversy GOP budget

conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center

for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,

do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget

conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe
most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But

fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing

Republicans

these necessary services to the American people, congressional

must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and
spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and

Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.

will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer

Impact on

oceans

places to hunt, fish, and relax.

public lands and
The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in
September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6
percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense
function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide
much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where
appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services
or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts
the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily
assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the
agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But
sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If
this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts,
tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather

prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive
from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the
Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate
as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S.
models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a
week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction
capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to
replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement
satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online.
During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and
Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially
causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development

of our

Energy development is an important

oceans

and legitimate use

lands and
. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore)
provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States

Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,

studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer
comes from federal lands and waters.

significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,

ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on

the Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency
manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development
of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent
public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development,

progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

DOI link republicans

Even internal executive decisions on offshore wind cause
partisan bickering accused of picking winners
Colman 13 (Zack, Interior Dept. plans for offshore wind leases draw GOP

fire, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/303321-interior-deptoffshore-wind-plan-draws-partisan-fire)(AC)
GOP lawmakers on Tuesday sharply criticized the Interior
Departments move to hold the nations first offshore wind lease
sale. Sen. David Vitter (La.), the Environment and Public Works Committees
top Republican, said it amounted to the Obama administration
picking energy industry winners and losers. Interior announced on
Monday that it would hold an auction on July 31 for 164,750 acres off the
coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the potential to generate
3,400 megawatts of electricity enough to power 1 million homes. Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale which has drawn
interest from nine firms history in the making. She said the July bidding
could be a bellwether for future offshore wind lease sales, though she noted it
might take time for a commercial industry to develop because the projects
are expensive and difficult to finance. Democrats applauded the move as a
strong step toward developing alternative energy sources. Offshore wind is
a win for American jobs, for American energy security, and for our
environment, and it will start off the coast of New England. With lease sales in
federal waters, offshore wind will also be a boon for U.S. taxpayers, Rep.
Edward Markey (Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources
Committee, said in a Tuesday statement. For Republicans, the milestone
is more of a boondoggle.

Oil Development
Plan-Specific Link: Oil Development [1/1]
( ) The plans extremely unpopular with liberal democrats and
environmentalists
Jervis et al 2008
[Rick Jervis and Bill Welch and Richard Wolf. Worth The Risk? Debate on Offshore Drilling
Heats Up USA Today, 7/14/8, available via Lexis-Nexis]

Environmentalists see two basic problems from offshore drilling: pollution from
everyday operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers. On both
fronts, they acknowledge, the industry has improved through the years. "Today's
technology is much better at routine drilling, at avoiding the kinds of seepages that
were common a generation ago," says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen. Even so,
there are still risks. When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other
things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be
discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may
contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes
drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals. "Basically, oil
and water don't mix," says Melanie Duchin of the environmental group Greenpeace,
who lives in Alaska and still sees pollution from the 11 million-gallon Exxon Valdez
spill of 1989, which supplanted Santa Barbara as the nation's worst. "Oil smothers
wildlife." Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and
government oversight have made routine drilling safe. State and federal laws
regulate how much of each chemical can be discharged into the water; most are at
insignificant levels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The mercury
that's generated cannot be absorbed by fish tissue, officials say, avoiding the food
chain. "The best fishing in the Gulf is where the rigs are," says Rep. John Peterson,
R-Pa., a leading proponent of offshore drilling. Spills from platforms have become far
less frequent over recent decades, federal data show. A report by the National
Research Council found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2%
of the petroleum in North America's oceans, compared with 63% from natural
seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard reports show
that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the
1970s to less than 500,000 in the 1990s. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in
2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only insignificant amounts of oil spilled,
says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator. There was significant pollution
8 million to 10 million gallons of oil spilled, mostly from tanks and pipelines on land
and from tankers striking submerged drilling platforms but less than 10% of that
came from federal offshore operations. Today's technology, such as automatic
shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices that can prevent blowouts
caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced the risk of oil
spills. "Offshore drilling is the safest way to go," Guidry says. "Those guys don't spill
oil." Environmentalist Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund says
smaller spills are still too common. "This is a dirty, polluting industry," he says. "I've
seen it with my own eyes, stepped in it with my own feet." The biggest pollution risk
involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil back to shore by pipeline,
barge or tanker. The 2002 National Research Council report found that marine
transportation was responsible for one-third of worldwide petroleum spillage, about
eight times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines. Still, the Minerals
Management Service projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels in

the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it says, a spill of
at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. "If that hit a beach in western Florida once
every four years, I think people would care," says Michael Gravitz of Environment
America. "Those communities live and die by having clean beaches."

OCS Unpopular--Environmentalists
Environmental groups hate the plan theyll halt progress
because of drilling
WorldWatch 14 (May 20, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5874)
The U.S. Congress is likely to debate an energy package this month that
would lift the offshore drilling ban. It could also offer financial support for
renewable energy technologies and policies that reduce fossil fuel
consumption. Politicians in both chambers of Congress who previously
opposed offshore drilling are now expressing support for expanded energy
policies. Even Santa Barbara County supports offshore drilling.
The political showdown has forced environmental groups to decide
between staunchly opposing offshore drilling or supporting
legislation that furthers their wider goals in addressing the climate
crisis. While most environmentalists oppose offshore drilling, some leading environmental groups may
ease their opposition in favor of clean energy policies that have so far floundered in Congress. If
national organizations support offshore drilling, they risk further
divisions with local environmental groups that are based along U.S. coastlines.
"The leaders of local environmental groups are digging in their heels.
They only want to talk about offshore drilling," said Eric Smith, a political science
professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "Meanwhile, lots of environmentalists are saying

We have a fight
here. It reflects a fight on coastal zones around the country."
we ought to talk more broadly and talk about what to do with climate change.

Environmental groups hate drilling theyre crucial to

dem success
The Washington Times 8 (July 16, S.A. Miller Green groups bolster
lobby against offshore drilling
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/16/green-groups-bolsterlobby-against-offshore-drilli/?page=all)
Environmental groups are scrambling to shore up opposition in the
Democrat-led Congress to more offshore oil drilling, countering the push for added
domestic production by President Bush and voters pinched by rising gasoline prices. There are
plenty of us on the other side creating pressure, too, said Friends of the Earth, which is
unleashing a campaign targeting select congressional districts to fend off calls for Congress to let the

The 40-year-old advocacy group is increasing

its lobbying on Capitol Hill and rallying activists nationwide with email alerts, newsletters and phone calls warning against what they
see as a land grab by the oil industry that will not lower gas
prices, he said. Meg Boyle, a climate policy specialist for the group. The environmentalist
movement forms a crucial piece of the Democrats base , and the two remain
offshore drilling ban expire Sept. 30.

close allies, but the gas-price crisis tests the relationship.

Renewables

GOP Opposition
Republicans and powerful conservative councils against
Renewable Energy
Malewitz, Stateline Energy and Environmental reporter, 13
(Jim, 6-24-13, The Pew: Stateline, Renewable energy incentives survive lobby
attack, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2013/06/24/renewable-energy-incentives-survivelobby-attack, accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
For renewable energy supporters, this was supposed to be a year of
statehouse setbacks.
States Cooling to Renewable Energy read the headline of a MarchWall
Street Journal story reporting that more than a dozen legislatures were
weighing proposals to roll back or abolish mandates that utilities purchase a
certain amount of renewable energy. Mandates are in place in 29 states and
Washington, D.C.
Opponents of the renewable energy requirements, which are
credited with spurring wind and solar investment across much of the
country, said the policies violate free-market principles and ramp up
electricity costs. After the 2012 elections installed large Republican
majorities in a number of states, the conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) joined ranks with prominent
libertarian groups in a nationwide anti-mandate blitz. Wind and solar
advocates feared the worst.
So much for predictions. With most sessions now wrapped up or waning,
renewable energy backers now brim with triumph and relief as they eye a
legislative scorecard tilting their way.

Republicans are opposed to renewablespassing bills to

restrict industries
Martin, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 13
(Christopher, 4-23-13, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201304-23/u-s-states-turn-against-renewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html,
accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
Republican Push
Hager is a Republican whose top campaign donors include Duke
Energy and the Charlotte, North Carolina-based utility
owners Progress Energy (PGN) unit, according to the National
Institute on Money in State Politics, a Helena, Montana-based nonprofit group. He expects the bill to pass through the GOP-controlled
legislature, and that Governor Pat McCrory, also a Republican, will
sign it.
Duke hasnt taken a position on the North Carolina bill, said Jeff
Brooks, a spokesman who confirmed the company has supported
Alec.

Colorados state senate passed a bill April 16 that would increase the amount
of energy utilities must get from renewable sources, and also expands the
definition to include non-renewable sources such as methane produced from
coal mining.
Connecticut is following a similar strategy, by including large hydroelectric
plants in its definition ofrenewable energy. That will help utilities meet the
states goal of 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, said Nick Culver, an
analyst at New Energy Finance in New York.
Connecticut has thrown up the white flag on its ambitious renewable targets,
and is now negotiating its terms of surrender, Culver said. Instead of simply
easing back targets, they intend to widen eligibility criteria to include
imported hydropower from Canada that would have been built regardless,
which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
Proposed Bills
Other states considering similar policies include Missouri, Ohio and Kansas.
Thirty of the proposed bills in those states were deemed
significant, meaning they have the potential to affect demand for
renewable power, by the North Carolina Solar Center, a partnership
between the Energy Department and North Carolina State University that
tracks such activity for the U.S. Energy Department.
Alecs Wynn said groups in six additional states are planning attacks on
renewable-energy policies.
The wind and solar industries are beating back efforts to reduce
demand with their own lobbying, said Carrie Hitt, vice president of state
affairs at the Washington-based Solar Energy Industry Association.
This is a deliberate campaign by conservative think-tanks, the
Heartland Institute and Alec to overturn renewable energy policy that
threatens the fossil industry, Hitt said in an interview.
Hager = Bill Hager, Florida House Representative

Oil Lobby Opposition

Multiple powerful lobbies oppose renewables- overwhelms
the few that support
Harder, Wall Street Journal energy reporter, 13
(Amy, 4/17/13, National Journal, Long List of Lobbies Oppose RenewableFuels Standard, http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-energy-commercecommittee/long-list-of-lobbies-oppose-renewablefuels-standard-20130417,
Accessed 7/7/14, CLF)
Its hard to rival the diversity and sheer number of groups and companies
with a vested interest in the renewable-fuels standard, from food and
livestock businesses to those in the environmental and energy sectors.
No official coalition exists to reform or repeal the mandate, like the one in late
2011 that successfully lobbied to allow $5 billion in annual corn-ethanol
subsidies to expire. Our reasons for all agreeing the corn-ethanol tax credit
was a bad idea just didnt extend to the rest of the biofuels market, said
Nathanael Greene, director of the Natural Resources Defense Councils
renewable-energy policy. NRDC has one of the more nuanced stances, which
is reflected in Waxmans still-evolving position. The group doesnt want
Congress to repeal the mandate, but its concerned about the carbon
footprint of corn ethanol and would prefer that the Environmental Protection
Agency manage any reforms.
The American Petroleum Institute, the powerful lobby group for
major oil companies, announced in November that it was shifting its
position from seeking to reform the policy to outright repeal. API is
urging lawmakers in the same direction as Friends of the Earth, one of the
most left-leaning environmental groups. Its website says the mandate should
either be fixed or ditched. The American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers, which represents the refineries that blend the
biofuels with gasoline, has been one of the loudest critics of the
standard, even before last years record drought thrust the issue to the
forefront.
One of the most powerful factions opposed to the standard is what
lobbyists refer to as the barnyard crowd: trade groups
representing livestock interests such as the National Turkey Federation,
the National Pork Producers, the National Cattlemens Beef Association, the
National Chicken Council, and the Milk Producers Council. The concern
expressed by these groupshigher corn pricesis what gets certain
Democrats to the table, such as Sen. Christopher Coons, D-Del., who hears
from poultry producers in his state. The National Restaurant Association and
the Grocery Manufacturers, which have a presence in all states and
congressional districts, are also opposed to the standard because of the use
of corn.
The list of interests lobbying to maintain the mandate without
changes is much shorter, led by trade groups for the biofuels industry: the
Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy. But this list also includes
one very important partyPresident Obama, whose home state of Illinois is a

big ethanol producer. Whether Obama will be willing to reform the policy
remains to be seen, but for now, statements from the Agriculture Department
and EPA indicate that the administration remains firm in its support for the
renewable-fuels standard.

Oil lobbies are against renewables

Johnsen, Townhall Web Political Editor, 13

(Erika, 10-25-13, HotAir, Businesses circling the White House to lobby

for/against the Renewable Fuel Standard,
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/25/businesses-circling-the-white-house-tolobby-foragainst-the-renewable-fuel-standard/, accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
The relief with which some industries welcomed the news that the
Environmental Protection Agency is perhaps considering backing
off somewhat from the onerous requirements of the Renewable Fuel
Standard was only equaled by the dismay with which it was met from
ethanols impressively well-organized and well-monied lobby. The EPA
acknowledging the reality that even they and their expansive bureaucratic
powers cannot interminably cudgel the energy sector unworkable mandates
is a rarity indeed, and as they are still claiming that they have yet to make a
final decision on the matter, its time for Come One, Come All over at the
White House. Via The Hill:
Officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have been busy
meeting with chemical and energy companies in recent days, ahead of
the expected release of new biofuel standards.
A version of the yearly target that has been leaked to media outlets
is a jobs killer, National Biodiesel Board spokesman Ben Evans said
in an emailed statement to The Hill.
On Thursday, the trade group and six biodiesel producers with plants across
the country met with Obama administration officials to plead their case.

Oil & nonrenewable energy lobbies hate solar and wind

development pushing legislation to restrict
Martin, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 13
(Christopher, 4-23-13, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201304-23/u-s-states-turn-against-renewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html,
accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
More than half the U.S. states with laws requiring utilities to buy renewable
energy are considering ways to pare back those mandates after a plunge in
natural gas prices brought on by technology that boosted supply.
Sixteen of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards are
considering legislation that would reduce the need for wind and solar
power, according to researchers backed by the U.S. Energy
Department. North Carolina lawmakers may be among the first to move,
followed byColorado and Connecticut.
The efforts could benefit U.S. utilities such as Duke Energy Corp
(DUK). and PG&E Corp (PCG). as well as Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM)., the

biggest U.S. oil producer, and Peabody Energy Corp (BTU)., the
largest U.S. coal mining company. Those companies contributed to at
least one of the lobby groups pushing the change, according to the
Center for Media and Democracy, a Madison, Wisconsin-based non-profit
group. It would hurt wind turbine makerVestas Wind Systems A/S
(VWS) and First Solar Inc (FSLR)., which develops solar farms.
Were opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active year
ever in terms of efforts to repeal them, said Todd Wynn, task force
director for energy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or
Alec, a lobby group pushing for the change. Natural gas is a clean
fuel, and regulators and policy makers are seeing how its much
more affordable than renewable energy.
Conference Discussion
President Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for
the oil and gas industry, along with the former governors of Colorado
and New Mexico will speak about the issue today in New York at a conference
hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Hydraulic-fracturing technology opened aging reservoirs for natural gas
drilling, driving prices down about 72 percent from their record 2005 high.
Thats making more expensive wind and solar power projects harder for utility
regulators to justify, according to Alec and its allies, which include
theHeritage Foundation in Washington.
The shale revolutions are not just having ramifactions politically and
economicaly in the U.S. but also around the world, said Michael Liebreich,
chief executive officer of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In 17 years, not
that far away, we could reach peak energy use. This is not generally
accepted.
Threat to Wind
Killing support for renewable-energy policies threatens sales at
companies from wind-turbine makersGeneral Electric Co (GE). and Siemens
AG (SIE) to SolarCity Corp. (SCTY), the San Mateo, California-based rooftop
energy developer.
The push at the state level replicates efforts in Washington.
Opposition from Republican lawmakers delayed the extension of a
federal tax credit for wind power, prompting Vestas, the biggest turbine
maker after GE, to fire 10 percent of its workforce at two Colorado factories.
There havent been any outright repeals yet, but weve seen some wateringdown, said Justin Barnes, senior policy analyst at the North Carolina Solar
Center. Activity against renewable portfolio standards has been
increasing in the past year. Their arguments are mostly on cost.
The Raleigh, North Carolina-based research group is supported by the Energy
Department and operates the DSIRE database of state incentives.
U.S. Renewables

Renewable energy unpopular massive oil lobbies

Martin, Bloomberg News, 13
[Christopher, 4-23-13, Bloomberg News, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/u-s-states-turn-againstrenewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]

U.S. investment in renewable power and energy efficiency fell 54
percent last year to $4.5 billion as government support waned,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The level may slip again this
year if states dilute their requirements, which have pushed utilities to
contract power from renewable providers and scale-back use of coal- and
natural gas-fired generation.
Alec wants to repeal state mandates, arguing that the free market is a better
way to determine the most cost-effective source of power, Wynn said. It
typically drafts model legislation for state lawmakers to use as a blueprint
when drafting bills, including the Electricity Freedom Act, which was
published in October.
The anti-renewable mandate effort is also fueled by the Heartland
Institute, the lobby group thats pushing to repeal clean-energy
goals that it says increase power prices, cost jobs and do little to
improve the environment, according to Heartlands website. Officials
from the organization werent available for comment.

Renewables unpopular massive lobby backing and state

rollback on renewable energy policies
Martin, Bloomberg News reporter, 13
[Christopher, 4-23-14, Bloomberg News, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/u-s-states-turn-againstrenewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]

More than half the U.S. states with laws requiring utilities to buy
renewable energy are considering ways to pare back those
mandates after a plunge in natural gas prices brought on by technology
that boosted supply.
Sixteen of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards are
considering legislation that would reduce the need for wind and
solar power, according to researchers backed by the U.S. Energy
Department. North Carolina lawmakers may be among the first to move,
followed by Colorado and Connecticut.
The efforts could benefit U.S. utilities such as Duke Energy Corp
(DUK). and PG&E Corp (PCG). as well as Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM).,
the biggest U.S. oil producer, and Peabody Energy Corp (BTU)., the largest
U.S. coal mining company. Those companies contributed to at least one
of the lobby groups pushing the change, according to the Center for
Media and Democracy, a Madison, Wisconsin-based non-profit group. It would
hurt wind turbine maker Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) and First Solar Inc
(FSLR)., which develops solar farms.
Were opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active
year ever in terms of efforts to repeal them, said Todd Wynn, task force
director for energy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or Alec, a
lobby group pushing for the change. Natural gas is a clean fuel, and

regulators and policy makers are seeing how its much more
affordable than renewable energy.

Oil companies lobby hundreds of millions per year against

renewables
Truitt, Hoosier Ag Today President, 14
[Gary, 4-15-14, Hoosier Ag Today, Oil Industry Spends Millions to Lobby
Against Renewable Fuels, http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/oil-industryspends-millions-to-lobby-against-renewable-fuels/, accessed 7-9-14, AKS]
Americans United for Change Executive Director Caren Benjamin
made the following statement as Americans face the tax deadline
today: In the last five years, the oil industry has invested $885
million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and been
handsomely rewarded with a steady gravy train of tax breaks
totaling more than $20 billion since 2009. Thats better than a 2000
percent return on their investment. Unfortunately, most Americans
cant afford to hire a lobbyist, so they are stuck paying more while
the oil companies get a free ride. To make matters worse, when
companies like Exxon Mobil shelter tens of billions of dollars in profits in
offshore tax havens, the average American taxpayer gets stuck with the tab.
U.S PIRG released a new report today finding that the average American
taxpayer in 2013 would have to shoulder an extra $1,259 in state and federal
taxes to make up for the revenue lost due to the use of offshore tax havens
by wealthy individuals and corporations. Corporations like Exxon Mobil
which has booked $47 billion in profits offshore, putting it in the top
ten of companies with the most cash offshore. The oil giant
maintains subsidiaries in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and
Bermuda.

Coal Lobby Opposition

The coal industry along with conservatives are heavily
fighting renewables
Rosenthal et al., New York Times Editor, 14

(Andrew, Terry Tang (Deputy Editorial Page Editor), Robert B. Semple

Jr. (Associate Editor), David Firestone (Projects Editor, National Politics, the
White House and Congress), Vikas Bajaj (Business, International Economics),
Philip M. Boffey (Science), Francis X. Clines, National Politics (Congress,
Campaign Finance), Lawrence Downes (Immigration, Veterans Issues), Carol
Giacomo (Foreign Affairs), Mira Kamdar (International Affairs), Juliet Lapidos
(Culture), Eleanor Randolph (New York State, Northeast Region, Media),
Dorothy Samuels (Law, Civil Rights, National Affairs), Serge
Schmemann (International Affairs), Brent Staples, (Education, Criminal
Justice, Economics), Masaru Tamamoto (International Affairs), Teresa Tritch
(Economic Issues, Tax Policy), Jesse Wegman (The Supreme Court, Legal
Affairs), 4-26-14, New York Times, The Koch Attack on Solar Energy,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solarenergy.html, accessed 7-7-14, CLF)
At long last, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state
government have found a new tax they can support. Naturally its a tax
on something the country needs: solar energy panels.
For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been
spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy , which
have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state
laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they
dont need back to electric utilities. So theyve been pushing
legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice,
hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.
Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the
behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative
group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and
receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers,
including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently, the
Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were
beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a
month in Arizona.
But the Big Carbon advocates arent giving up. The same group is trying to
repeal or freeze Ohios requirement that 12.5 percent of the states electric
power come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. Twentynine states have established similar standards that call for 10
percent or more in renewable power. These states can now anticipate
well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.
The coal producers motivation is clear: They see solar and wind
energy as a long-term threat to their businesses. That might seem
distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nations
electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of
power customers have solar arrays. (It is slightly higher in California and

Hawaii.) But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and

other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions,
the future clearly lies with renewable energy. In 2013, 29 percent of newly
installed generation capacity came from solar, compared with 10 percent in
2012.

Lobbies Oppose Renewables

Even bipartisan renewable policies create backlash from
lobbiesleads to political fights
Cardwell, NYT Energy & Business Day Reporter, 14
[Diane, 5/28/14, The New York Times, A Pushback on Green Power ,

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/business/energy-environment/apushback-on-green-power.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0, accessed 7/6/14,

AC]
As renewable energy production has surged in recent years,
opponents of government policies that have helped spur its growth
have pushed to roll back those incentives and mandates in state
after state.
On Wednesday, they claimed their first victory, when Ohio lawmakers
voted to freeze the phasing-in of power that utilities must buy from
renewable energy sources.

The bill, which passed the Ohio House of Representatives, 54 to 38,

was expected to be signed into law by Gov. John R. Kasich, who helped
negotiate its final draft.

It stands in marked contrast to the broad consensus behind the

original law in 2008, when it was approved with virtually no opposition, and
comes after considerable disagreement among lawmakers, energy executives
and public interest groups.
Opponents of the mandates argued, in part, that wind and solar
power, whose costs have plunged in recent years, should compete on
their own with traditional fossil fuels. But the debate has taken on a
broader, more political tone as well, analysts say, with
disagreements over the role of government, the economic needs of
the state and the debate over climate change.
It used to be that renewables was this Kumbaya, come-together
moment for Republicans and Democrats, said Michael E. Webber,
deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
The intellectual rhetoric around why you would want renewables
has been lost and replaced by partisanship.
Since 2013, more than a dozen states have taken up proposals to
weaken or eliminate green energy mandates and incentives, often
helped by conservative and libertarian policy or advocacy groups
like the Heartland Institute, Americans for Prosperity and
the American Legislative Exchange Council.
In Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently defeated a bill that
would have phased out the states renewable energy mandates, but
its backers have vowed to propose it again.
Jay Apt, director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon
University, said the Ohio battle was another skirmish in the
question of whether we are committed to cleaning up pollution, and

people are divided. He added, Renewable portfolio standards and other

mechanisms of pollution control are not cost-free.
The Ohio bill freezes mandates that require utilities to gradually phase in the
purchase of 25 percent of their power from alternative sources, including
wind, solar and emerging technologies like clean coal production, by 2025.
While the freeze is in effect for two years, a commission would study the
issue.
At the federal level, alternative energy industries like solar and wind have
pushed hard in recent years to preserve important tax breaks that they say
have helped spur new development and sharply increased the supply of clean
energy flowing into the grid.
But the demand for that energy has been largely propelled at the state level
by mandates, known as renewable portfolio standards, that generally set
goals for utilities to increase the percentage of green energy they include in
the power they buy for their customers.
Roughly 30 states have the standards, which can range from modest
voluntary goals like Indianas target of 10 percent by 2025 to more
aggressive requirements like Hawaiis, which aim for 40 percent by 2030,
according to the Department of Energy.
Energy markets are highly policy-driven, said Todd Foley, senior vice
president of policy and government relations at the American Council on
Renewable Energy. When states and even the federal government
continually revisit these policies, it sends a signal of uncertainty. It
chills market and investment momentum.
In Ohio, where opponents of the mandate argued that it raised the price of
electricity and supporters worried about the loss of economic development
and jobs, Mr. Kasich worked to broker the compromise bill, said a spokesman
for the governor.
We rejected the efforts by those whod like to kill renewable energy
altogether, and instead were moving forward in a balanced way that
supports renewable energy while also preserving the economic recovery
thats created more than 250,000 jobs, the spokesman, Rob Nichols, said.
Its not what everyone wanted, which probably means we came down at the
right spot.
Eli Miller, Americans for Prosperitys Ohio state director, backed by the
billionaire industrialists David H. and Charles G. Koch, called the proposed law
a prudent step to re-examine standards that could be a potential
impediment to job creation and job growth here in the Buckeye State.
But Gabe Elsner, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute, a prorenewables group that sees efforts to weaken incentives and mandates as
part of a campaign by utility and fossil fuel interests, said the temporary halt
could do away with the law entirely.
The fossil fuel and utility industry has been caught off guard by the rise of
cheap, clean energy, and over the past 18 months theyve responded in a
really big way across the country, he said. Were seeing the results of that
campaign now in Ohio.
Renewable energy still represents a small fraction of the overall energy mix,
reaching about 6 percent of net generation in 2013, excluding hydropower,
according to the United States Energy Information Administration. But it is on
the rise, representing 30 percent of power plant capacity added that year.

For renewable developers, the outlook is uncertain. Michael

Speerschneider, chief permitting and public policy officer for EverPower,
which recently won approval to develop a 176-turbine project in Ohio, said
the ruling would make it more difficult to find a buyer for the power, dimming
prospects for doing business in the state.
We came to Ohio based on the policies that were in place, he said.
Changing that now, freezing it, just sends a message that says, Now, we
dont want you here anymore.'

Lobbies Oppose Renewables Mandates

Lobbies oppose renewable mandates
Martin, Bloomberg BusinessWeek AP, 13
(Christopher, 4-23-13, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201304-23/u-s-states-turn-against-renewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html,
accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
U.S. investment in renewable power and energy efficiency fell 54
percent last year to $4.5 billion as government support waned,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The level may slip again this
year if states dilute their requirements, which have pushed utilities to
contract power from renewable providers and scale-back use of coal- and
natural gas-fired generation.
Alec wants to repeal state mandates, arguing that the free market is a better
way to determine the most cost-effective source of power, Wynn said. It
typically drafts model legislation for state lawmakers to use as a blueprint
when drafting bills, including the Electricity Freedom Act, which was
published in October.
The anti-renewable mandate effort is also fueled by the Heartland
Institute, the lobby group thats pushing to repeal clean-energy
goals that it says increase power prices, cost jobs and do little to
improve the environment, according to Heartlands website. Officials from
the organization werent available for comment.

Media Magnifies Link

Because of fossil fuel interests, the media and the public
perceives renewables badly
Gomberg, energy analyst and responsible energy policies
expert, 14
(Sam, 5-5014, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Koch Brothers Cant
Switch Off Renewable Electricity, http://blog.ucsusa.org/renewableelectricity-standards-koch-brothers-516, accessed 7-7-14, CLF)
The Union of Concerned Scientists works with a broad range of allies
business and industry, environmental and consumer advocates, and
engaged citizens and experts to make sure decision makers have the
facts to see through the disinformation campaigns led by the Koch
Brothers and their cohorts and make well-informed decisions about
the role of renewable energy in meeting energy demand. We were
among the first to exposethe Koch Brothers pending attack on RES policies in
2012 and to highlight the misleading claims, and often downright lies, spread
by the fossil fuel lobby.
Campaigns of disinformation attracting attention and eroding the
publics trust
Fossil fuel interests, led by the Koch Brothers and the organizations
they fund, are carrying on a campaign of disinformation to spread
doubt about renewable energy and its potential to create a clean,
sustainable energy future for America.

Public Opposes Renewables

People dont like renewables too big, too ugly and
unreliable
Kahya, BBC business reporter, 09

(Damian, 12-3-09, BBC News, Can we go 100% renewables,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8388669.stm, accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
Only about a third of the energy we use comes in the form of electricity.
Transport and heating are also key.
The wind doesn't always blow
Renewable energy is often unreliable.
They include wind, hydro-electric, tidal, solar and wave and geothermal
power along with energy from plant and waste material - so-called biomass
and bio-fuels.
The wind does not always blow so most wind-farms average 20-30%
of their capacity.
The governments suggested 33 GW of offshore wind will generate
just a third of that.
Tidal and hydroelectric power are more reliable, but hard to locate .
Professor MacKay estimates there are enough good spots for hydroelectric to provide 0.8% of our current energy needs.
Tidal power has just one commercial turbine in the Strangford Lough,
Northern Ireland.
Carbon Trust research suggests the technology could provide 0.6%
of current energy use.
But the numbers are rough.
"We're roughly where aviation was in 1920s," says Peter Fraenkel, technical
director for the company behind the Strangford project, Marine Currents
Turbines.
Finding the space
Space is also an issue for wind, solar and biofuels.
Installing just 33GW of offshore wind would need 10,000 square
kilometres of coastal waters generating only 3% of our current
energy supply, Professor MacKay estimates.
It means that we would struggle to exceed 50% of our current needs
from renewable energy, he insists.
Social rejection
"People love renewable energy," according to Professor MacKay, "unless
it is bigger than a fig-leaf".

Wind unpopular with public and positive public

perceptions of renewables take a too long to achieve
Gaur, Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research Consortium, WorldFish, 12

(Sachin (WorldFish: international, non-profit research organization dedicated

to reducing poverty and hunger by improving fisheries and aquaculture), 1022-12, The Fletcher School: Tufts Universtiy (Graduate School of International

Affairs), Public Perception Key to Wind Energy Projects,

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CIERP/News/more/Oct22Petrova, accessed 7-9-14,
CLF)
The development of new sources of renewable energy is crucial in achieving
energy security, and wind energy is certainly one of them as wind turbines
installed at various locations across the country are gradually increasing their
contribution to electricity generation. As these projects develop, it is
imperative to take local communities into consideration before
starting new initiatives, as their support is an integral component of
successful projects.
Maria Petrova, a postdoctoral research fellow at CIERP, recently completed
research on measuring the perceptions among local communities about
wind energy projects. In her presentation entitled Public Perceptions of
Wind Energy Projects in Massachusetts, Petrova shared results demonstrating
that communities tend to support such projects provided their benefits
are explained to residents in a timely and coherent manner.
Petrova did a survey to examine perceptions of wind energy projects that are
being developed in Massachusetts under the same legal and political
framework. Three towns in the state were chosen: Falmouth, Hull, and
Kingston. These projects are sited in residential areas and possess
similar capacities, but they are at different stages of development
and have different levels of community acceptance.

Participation of local communities key to wind turbines

empirically localization of the issue has been
controversial
Gaur, CGIAR Consortium, WorldFish, 12

(Sachin (WorldFish: international, non-profit research organization dedicated

to reducing poverty and hunger by improving fisheries and aquaculture), 1022-12, The Fletcher School:Tufts Universtiy (Graduate School of International
Affairs), Public Perception Key to Wind Energy Projects,
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CIERP/News/more/Oct22Petrova, accessed 7-9-14,
CLF)
The survey results showed that Massachusetts residents, in general, are
supportive of wind energy projects. In Hull, following the success of
the first wind turbine, the local community decided to install another
turbine as they saw tangible results of the project. Both turbines
now supply electricity to 1,100 homes along with supply to traffic and
street lights.
Petrova found that the community in Kingston started to implement the wind
energy project as soon as the renewable portfolio standard was adopted in
2002. After extensive consultations and hearings, the town moved ahead with
wind energy projects and now boasts five wind turbines both privately and
publicly owned.
In Falmouth, however, the enthusiasm over the turbine was marred
by health fears and noise concerns. Now the turbines in the area are
operated only during the day. Community meetings are regularly

organized by the Consensus Building Institute, and both sides relay

their concerns over wind projects to try to find mutually acceptable
solutions to the problem. When asked how the wind turbines fit into the
landscape, most respondents in Falmouth say that wind turbines create noise
and are intruders in their space. They also feel that wind projects have
changed their life for the worse.
However, the residents in Hull believe that wind turbines are an
attractive feature of the landscape and their life has changed for the
better. The same pattern of completely opposite responses is further
reflected in other research questions.
Petrova said that property values are a major cause of concern among
residents, as property values may drop following the installation of turbines.
The survey shows that Falmouth residents do not think these projects provide
financial benefits to them or to the town, whereas the respondents in Hull see
benefits from these projects. From an environmental policy point of
view, Falmouth residents are concerned about negative effects of
such projects on wildlife and their health.
How the residents get to know about these projects is also an important
issue. People in Hull learned of these projects during the planning phase; in
Kingston, most respondents learned about them during the construction
phase; Falmouth residents were informed about these projects at a
much later stage. The residents become aware of such projects
through town hall meetings, newspapers, and other forms of media,
and they acknowledge that receiving adequate information is critical for
building public opinion on wind turbine projects.
Human geography issues also determine how these projects are seen by
residents. Do they see them as intruders in their community? Socio-economic
concerns tell us whether property values go up or down, how such projects
affect tourism, or if there are financial benefits to the community.
Environmental policy issues deal with wildlife concerns, health concerns,
greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction on oil dependence.
The increase in energy demand is largely driven by growing requirements for
electricity as the world population is expected to touch 9 billion by 2030.
Earlier, OECD countries were driving the demand, but with the rise of
emerging economies, the demand for energy is now also coming from nonOECD countries. In the face of mounting pressure on finite resources,
renewable energy sources have huge potential to help tackle resources
constraints.
Natural gas contributes the most to electricity generation in Massachusetts
and amounts to around 74%, nuclear energy supplies 12%, coal power plants
contribute up to 9%, and the share of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
etc.) is around 4%. Massachusetts is one of the few states in the US that
started exploring the potential of renewable energy early. The ambitious plan
is to generate 15% of electricity in Massachusetts through wind energy by
2020.
To meet that goal, the participation of local communities is important
in taking informed decisions and making them stakeholders in
renewable energy projects. Petrova said that if a project is presented with
all the relevant information, people are willing to assume ownership. If they

see tangible benefits coming to their community, they will make sure that it
is done, which is the key to success.

Solar

Conservative Opposition
Conservatives and the nations largest power companies
oppose solar energy
Abrams, SALON assistant editor, 14

(Lindsey, 4-21-14, SALON, The Koch brothers are going after solar panels,
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/the_koch_brothers_are_going_after_solar_p
anels/, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
Homeowners and businesses that wish to generate their own cheap,
renewable energy now have a force of conservative political might to contend
with, and the Koch brothers are leading the charge. The L.A. Times, to its
credit, found the positive spin to put on this: Little old solar has now
grown big enough to have enemies.
The escalating battle centers over two ways traditional utilities have
found to counter the rapidly growing solar market: demanding a
share of the power generated by renewables and opposing net
metering, which allows solar panel users to sell the extra electricity
they generate back to the grid and without which solar might no
longer be affordable. The Times reports on the conservative heavyweights
making a fossil fuel-powered effort to make those things happen:
The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the
nations largest power companies have backed efforts in recent
months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The
conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North
Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group
for conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that
targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by conservative
lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal green energy
mandates.
State governments are starting to wake up, Christine Harbin Hanson,
a spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed
by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email.
The organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in
Kansas, which requires that 20% of the states electricity come from
renewable sources.
These green energy mandates are bad policy, said Hanson, adding that the
group was hopeful Kansas would be the first of many dominoes to fall.
The groups campaign in that state compared the green energy mandate
to Obamacare, featuring ominous images of Kathleen Sebelius, the outgoing
secretary of Health and Human Services, who was Kansas governor when the
state adopted the requirement.

Conservatives hate solar with such passionKoch

brothers and powerful energy companies
Halper, Washington D.C. Policy reporter, 14

(Evan, 4-19-14, The Los Angeles Times, Koch brothers, big utilities attack
solar, green energy policies, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solarkochs-20140420-story.html#page=1, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
WASHINGTON The political attack ad that ran recently in Arizona had some
familiar hallmarks of the genre, including a greedy villain who hogged sweets
for himself and made children cry.
But the bad guy, in this case, wasn't a fat-cat lobbyist or someone's political
opponent.
He was a solar-energy consumer.
Solar, once almost universally regarded as a virtuous, if perhaps over-hyped,
energy alternative, has now grown big enough to have enemies.
The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the
nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent
months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The
conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina
and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.
Alarmed environmentalists and their allies in the solar industry have
fought back, battling the other side to a draw so far. Both sides say the
fight is growing more intense as new states, including Ohio, South
Carolina and Washington, enter the fray.
At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of states. One
requires utilities to get a certain share of power from renewable sources. The
other, known as net metering, guarantees homeowners or businesses with
solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the
power grid at attractive rates.
Net metering forms the linchpin of the solar-energy business model. Without
it, firms say, solar power would be prohibitively expensive.
The power industry argues that net metering provides an unfair
advantage to solar consumers, who don't pay to maintain the power
grid although they draw money from it and rely on it for backup on
cloudy days. The more people produce their own electricity through solar,
the fewer are left being billed for the transmission lines, substations and
computer systems that make up the grid, industry officials say.
"If you are using the grid and benefiting from the grid, you should
pay for it," said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric
Institute, the advocacy arm for the industry. "If you don't, other
customers have to absorb those costs."
The institute has warned power companies that profits could erode
catastrophically if current policies and market trends continue. If electricity
companies delay in taking political action, the group warned in a
report, "it may be too late to repair the utility business model."
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group for
conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that
targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by
conservative lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal
green energy mandates.
"State governments are starting to wake up," Christine Harbin Hanson, a
spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by
billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email. The

organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in Kansas, which
requires that 20% of the state's electricity come from renewable sources.
"These green energy mandates are bad policy," said Hanson, adding
that the group was hopeful Kansas would be the first of many dominoes to
fall.
The group's campaign in that state compared the green energy mandate to
Obamacare, featuring ominous images of Kathleen Sebelius, the outgoing
secretary of Health and Human Services, who was Kansas' governor when the
state adopted the requirement.
The Kansas Senate voted late last month to repeal the mandate, but solar
industry allies in the state House blocked the move.
Environmentalists were unnerved. "The want to roll it back here so
they can start picking off other states," said Dorothy Barnett, director of
the Climate and Energy Project, a Kansas advocacy group.
The arguments over who benefits from net metering, meanwhile, are hotly
disputed. Some studies, including one published recently by regulators in
Vermont, conclude that solar customers bring enough benefits to a regional
power supply to fully defray the cost of the incentive.
Utilities deny that and are spending large sums to greatly scale back the
policy.
In Arizona, a major utility and a tangle of secret donors and operatives with
ties to ALEC and the Kochs invested millions to persuade state
regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering
customers.
Two pro-business groups, at least one of which had previously reported
receiving millions of dollars from the Koch brothers, formed the campaign's
public face. Their activities were coordinated by GOP consultant Sean Noble
and former Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams, two early architects of the
Koch network of nonprofits.
In October, California ethics officials levied a $1-million fine after accusing
groups the two men ran during the 2012 election of violating state campaign
finance laws in an effort to hide the identities of donors.
The Arizona Public Service Co., the state's utility, also had Noble on its
payroll. As a key vote at the Arizona Corporation Commission approached late
last year, one of the commissioners expressed frustration that anonymous
donors had bankrolled the heated campaign. He demanded APS reveal its
involvement. The utility reported it had spent $3.7 million.
"Politically oriented nonprofits are a fact of life today and provide a vehicle for
individuals and organizations with a common point of view to express
themselves," company officials said in a statement in response to questions
about their campaign.
The solar companies, seeking to sway the corporation commission, an
elected panel made up entirely of Republicans, formed an organization aimed
at building support among conservatives. The group, Tell Utilities Solar won't
be Killed, is led by former California congressman Barry Goldwater Jr., a
Republican Party stalwart.
"These solar companies are becoming popular, and utilities don't like
competition," Goldwater said. "I believe people ought to have a choice."
The commission ultimately voted to impose a monthly fee on solar
consumers of $5.

The solar firms declared victory. But utility industry officials and
activists at ALEC and Americans for Prosperity say the battles are
just getting underway. They note the Kansas legislation will soon be up for
reconsideration, and fights elsewhere have barely begun.
In North Carolina, executives at Duke Energy, the country's largest electric
utility, have made clear the state's net metering law is in their sights. The
company's lobbying effort is just beginning. But already, Goldwater's group
has begun working in the state, launching a social media and video campaign
accusing Duke of deceit.
"The intention of these proposals is to eliminate the rooftop solar industry,"
said Bryan Miller, president of the Alliance for Solar Choice, an industry
group.
"They have picked some of the most conservative states in the country," he
added. "But rooftop solar customers are voters, and policymakers ultimately
have to listen to the public."

Koch Brothers and Major power companies are waging a

war on solar energy
Horsey, Los Angeles Times, 14
(David, 4-23-14, The Los Angeles Times, Koch brothers and big utilities
campaign to unplug solar power,
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-koch-brothers-andsolar-power-20140422-story.html, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
The Koch brothers have a new ploy to protect the traditional energy
business that helped make them the planets fifth- and sixth-richest
humans. They are funding a campaign to shackle solar energy
consumers who have escaped the grip of big electric utilities.
Of all the pro-business, anti-government causes they have funded with their
billions, this may be the most cynical and self-serving. On Sunday, a Los
Angeles Times story by Evan Halper outlined the Kochs latest scheme. Along
with anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, several major power companies
and a national association representing conservative state
legislators, the brothers are aiming to kill preferences for the
burgeoning solar power industry that have been put into law in
dozens of states. Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona are their first targets,
with more to come.
They already have their first victory. On Monday, Oklahomas
Republican Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill passed by the GOPcontrolled Legislature that authorizes electric utilities to tack a
surcharge on the bills of private citizens who have installed solar
panels or wind turbines on their homes. Thats right, Oklahomans who
have spent money to generate their own clean and green power now must
pay compensation to the power companies.
This sounds a bit like government trampling on the independence of the
citizenry. Youd think the tea party would be protesting and militia groups
would be riding in with guns drawn. But since it is Republicans and big
business doing the trampling, there is, as yet, no outcry from the libertarian
crowd.

So, what is driving this crusade against clean energy? As Halper

reports, At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of
states. One requires utilities to get a certain share of power from
renewable sources. The other, known as net metering, guarantees
homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to
sell any excess electricity back into the power grid at attractive
rates.
These laws have helped the solar industry reach a tipping point
where the business model is finally viable. In a world where too much
CO2 from coal, gas and oil is being pumped into the atmosphere, that seems
like a good thing, but the Kochs and the utilities claim solars success
is a threat to the future of the power grid. If there are more and more
households freeing themselves from total reliance on traditional power
sources, there will be less money available to maintain the electricity delivery
infrastructure.
They may have a valid point, but the problem could be addressed with
modest adjustments to the system. That they have opted for an allout war against key laws that promote alternative energy suggests
the real motivation may be more crass: protecting the profits of the
entrenched fossil fuels-based energy industry.

LNG Terminals

Congressional Opposition to LNG Terminals

LNG export permits generates congressional backlash
Levi, Council on Foreign Relations Energy and
Environment Senior Fellow, 12
[Michael, June 2012, Hamilton Project, A Strategy for U.S. Natural Gas
Exports,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/13%20
exports%20levi/06_exports_levi, accessed 6/26/14, AC]
But there is also great wariness in many quarters about the prospect
of allowing exports of natural gas. Americans usually support
exports, but natural gas, along with other energy commodities, has
recently received special scrutiny. Some fear that allowing exports
would dangerously drive up domestic natural gas prices while
making the U.S. gas market more volatile. Others would prefer that
domestic gas be directed toward boosting manufacturing at home,
replacing coal-fired power plants, or taking the place of oil as the ultimate
fuel for American cars and trucks. Still more oppose natural gas exports
because those exports would result in greater U.S. natural gas
production, potentially leading to social and environmental
disruption. All of these parties oppose natural gas exports, or at least
seek significant constraints. Some are driven by broad visions of the national
interest to conclude that natural gas exports would have negative
consequences that are not captured by simple economic logic. Others are
motivated by more self-interested concerns, particularly the desire to secure
cheap energy inputs for their industries.

LNG permit applications are empirically unpopularturns

case
Natural Gas Intelligence, Leading Gas information
newsletter, 9
[NGI is a leading Natural Gas information newsletter, 1/19/9, Natural
Gas Intelligence, FERC Makes Unpopular Decision to approve Sparrows
Point, http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/19185-ferc-makesunpopular-decision-to-approve-sparrows-point, accessed 7/8/14, AC]
Conceding that its decision was "not a popular" one, FERC last
Thursday approved, subject to 169 conditions, the controversial AES
Sparrows Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal project near
Baltimore and associated Mid-Atlantic Express pipeline, which would
bring 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas to growing markets in the Northeast. The
agency also upheld on rehearing two order authorizing two LNG
projects -- Dominion Cove Point LNG on the eastern shore of Maryland,
andNorthernStar Natural Gas Inc.'s Bradwood Landing LNG terminal project in
Oregon.

With respect to Sparrows Point, "our primary concern is assuring public safety.
We have done so in this order by attaching 169 conditions that will protect
public safety and mitigate any adverse environmental impact," said FERC
Chairman Joseph Kelliher. "I realize this is not a popular decision, but it
is the correct decision, rooted in voluminous record and based on sound
science."
The Sparrows Point project, which was been the target of intense
opposition by state and federal politicians, would have about 1.5
Bcf/d of regasification capacity with a potential for expansion to 2.25
Bcf/d. Regasified LNG would be delivered to regional markets via Mid-Atlantic
Express, an 88-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline that would extend from the
terminal to connections with interstate pipelines at Eagle, PA.
The project, including three LNG tanks to store up to 480,000 cubic meters of
LNG, would be located on 80 acres within the existing Sparrows Point
Industrial Complex southeast of Baltimore in Baltimore County. The site was
previously owned by Bethlehem Steel and housed a steel manufacturing and
shipbuilding facility.
The decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came
two days after the state of Maryland, in a last-ditch effort, urged
FERC to withhold approval of the terminal and pipeline project until
the concerns of state and local governments are fully addressed.
Maryland's concerns about the LNG terminal proposed near
Baltimore are "substantial and numerous," wrote Bruce Michael of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources in a letter to the Commission last
Tuesday.
Even with FERC's approval of the terminal and pipeline project,
Maryland could delay the construction of the facilities indefinitely by
refusing to issue water permits -- as some states have done with
contentious gas projects within their boundaries.

Offshore Drilling

Offshore Drilling Spends Political Capital

Expanded offshore drilling causes political backlash
Hobson, National Journal energy and environmental
correspondent, 12

[Margret, 4-18-12, E&E Publishing, Obamas Development Plans Gain Little

Political Traction in Years since Gulf Spill,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059963022, accessed 7-4-13, HG]
That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but
praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in
improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil
spill preparation.
An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday
by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and
industry are "woefully inadequate."
As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck
near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't
winning him any political capital. The environmental community
hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry
officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And
independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric.
According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in
Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above"
energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was
"described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative
energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as
credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent."
A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on
energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes
energy development is more important than environmental protection, while
41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority.
In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies
are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal
voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for
Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and
Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to
back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said.
"He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to
show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like.
Maybe it will work."

Controversial offshore drilling is hugely unpopular with

Congress and causes backlash from Democrats
Geman, energy and environment reporter for the Hill, 10
[Ben, 4-1-10, The Hill, Obamas Offshore Drilling Push Shakes Up
Congressional Fight Over Climate Change, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-

wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-, accessed 7-7-13,

HG]
President Barack Obamas offshore drilling proposal has shaken up
the Capitol Hill climate change fight.The White House has been
emphasizing its support for nuclear power and oil drilling as it courts
Republican and centrist Democratic endorsements of greenhouse gas
emissions curbs.
Under the administration plan, the Interior Department will proceed with a
lease sale for companies interested in drilling 50 miles off the Virginia coast
before 2012. Leasing off the coasts of other mid-Atlantic and Southeastern
states would be authorized in Interiors 2012-2017 program.
The White House is also calling for opening a major swath of the
eastern Gulf of Mexico, which is mostly off-limits under a 2006 Gulf
drilling law.
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using
executive power, expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico
would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in
the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to
bring to the floor.
Republicans called Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing
or sales in other areas.
The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note
Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the
Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support.
One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling
OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to
sweeten a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states.
But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation Sens. John
Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) risk losing support among liberal Democrats and
environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling.
For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday.
Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches
and vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a prepared statement.
Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise
climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural
Resources Defense Council also slammed the proposal.

Both the GOP and Democrats are highly polarized on

offshore drilling causes backlash
Geman, energy and environment reporter for the Hill, 10
[Ben, 4-1-10, The Hill, Obamas Offshore Drilling Push Shakes Up
Congressional Fight Over Climate Change, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-, accessed 7-7-13,
HG]
Republicans were generally lukewarm at best to the Obama
administration plan Wednesday, and many attacked the proposal,

calling it too modest. The plan also scuttles some proposed Alaska lease
sales.
White House spokesman Bill Burton largely deflected questions Wednesday
about whether the drilling push would help the push for climate change
legislation.
I would say that its obviously a part of the climate legislation and
the entire package that the president is working with Congress to
move forward, he said when asked about the implications of the
drilling plan on the Capitol Hill climate change debate.
So I would say that this is mostly about coming through on a promise that he
made to the American people that he would have a comprehensive energy
plan that would include some increased domestic production of energy but
also some big investments in renewable technology, as well as finding ways
to promote efficiency and things like that. So all these things are connected,
he added.
Something else to watch: Several lawmakers who support wider
offshore drilling want the Senate energy and climate bill to give
coastal states a nice cut of what could be billions of dollars in
leasing and royalty revenue.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a centrist swing vote in the climate fight, on
Wednesday applauded the plan to proceed with leasing off Virginias coast
but reiterated his call for Virginia to receive a share of the money.
This policy should be coupled with a fair and equitable formula for profitsharing between the federal and state government in order to attract wellpaying jobs to the commonwealth and support a range of projects, from clean
energy development to transportation infrastructure to coastal restoration,
Webb said.

Offshore drilling saps capital- looses base

Geman 10 Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-

expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of

Mexico would require congressional approval . That will surely play a role in
the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power,

Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas.

The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy

Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an
opening to woo new support. One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales

But the White

House and the architects of Senate legislation Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.) risk losing support among liberal Democrats and
environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
attacked the plan Wednesday. Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and
vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on
gives lawmakers the opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states.

board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council

also slammed the proposal.

Unpopular
Offshore drilling is unpopular with Democrat Senators and
Oceana
Fisher, Oceana Editorial manager, 10
[Emily, 5-10-14, Oceana, Oceana Joins Senators in Opposition to
New Drilling, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2010/05/oceana-joins-senators-incall-for-a-ban-on-new-offshore-drilling, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
Oceana CEO Andy Sharpless joined three Senators at a press
conference on the oil spill yesterday, and he called on President
Obama and Congress to ban new offshore drilling.
"I will make it short and to the point," said Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida).
"The president's proposal for offshore drilling is dead on arrival. Senator
Nelson was joined by New Jersey Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg and
Robert Menendez.
The Senators also vowed to keep new oil drilling provisions out of any
climate change legislation that comes out of the Senate, and Senator
Menendez has introduced new legislation to raise the limit on the
amount of money oil companies could be forced to pay for economic
damages from catastrophic oil spills.
While it is too late to avert the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it is not
too late to learn from it, or to put those lessons to work, said Sharpless.
We must take immediate action and put in place long-term policies
that put the health of coastal communities and ecosystems over the
interests of the oil lobby and industry profits.

Bipartisan Support for Offshore Drilling

Energy reform and continued offshore drilling popular
jobs and energy security
Kelley, Research Analyst at Energy Acuity, 12

[Mike, 9-7-12, Energy Acuity, Energy Policys Impact on the 2012 Presidential
Debate, http://www.energyacuity.com/blog/bid/217770/Energy-Policy-sImpact-on-the-2012-Presidential-Race, accessed 7-7-13, HG]
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office cites 70% of the
nations oil and gas reserves as available for drilling already, making
it unclear as to the extent to which Romneys plan will increase actual energy
yields (3). An emphasis in off-shore exploration is expected to bolster our
nations fuel production but we must remain mindful of the potential for
disaster, as shown by the recent Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Romney notes
that exploration in the Mid-Atlantic, which is currently prohibited, has
received continuous bipartisan support (4). Its worth noting that this support
is from Virginia State Senators, whose responsibility is primarily to their
constituents. Sen. Jim Webb (D) mentions improvements to his
commonwealths economy as a primary reason to support development in
the Mid-Atlantic. When discussing national energy policy, this inherent danger
of porkbarrel politics, the allocation of federal funds for use in largely
localized projects, cannot be ignored. Even still, at our current pace of
development, the EIA (Energy Information Administration) predicts
the US can eliminate its net imports of natural gas and reduce
imports of oil to 38% by 2020. A majority of the necessary oil
imports remaining will be sourced from Canada and Mexico, an idea
that has continually attracted bipartisan support (5). If were going to
be approaching North American energy independence by 2020 anyways, than
the question becomes whether the actions proposed by Romney to further
accelerate domestic production are worth the potential externalities.
One key factor in achieving energy independence not discussed in this report
is the fate of existing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.
President Obama implemented standards in May 2010 which aim to achieve a
fuel economy of 34.5 mpg in model year 2016 vehicles. The EIA cites these
new standards as a contributing factor to the 124,000 barrel per day
decrease in US gasoline consumption during the first quarter of 2012 as
compared to 2011. In an effort to continue this positive trend, this summer
President Obama implemented new standards aimed at improving nationwide
fuel economy for 2017-2025 (54.5 mpg in model year 2025 vehicles) (6). The
EIA predicts this new measure will save 1.4 million barrels of oil per day by
2035 when compared to a simple extension of the 2012-2016 standards (7).
This decision has been received with staunch opposition from the Republican
Party, including the new Presidential hopeful. Romney has been open in his
opposition of the CAFE standards, stating that they hurt domestic
automakers and provided a benefit to some of the foreign automakers (8).
Not only would Romney be expected to rescind the new standards but could
repeal the 2012-2016 standards which have already had a tangible effect on
foreign oil imports. Despite these accusations, the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration expects these standards to reduce our

consumption of oil by 4 billion barrels and the BlueGreen Alliance predicts
an additional 570,000 jobs by 2030 as a result of this policy (9).
Certainly these standards present an opportunity to increase our
energy independence without the risks of increasing offshore drilling
or opening federal lands for exploration.

Offshore drilling and cooperation in the Gulf is popular

and supported by policymakers willing to cooperate on
environmental standards
Hiar, former staff writer for the Center for Public Integrity,
the Huffington Post, and PBS MediaShift, 1/23/13
[Corbin, 1-23-13, SNL Electric Utility Report, New congressional push for oil,
gas revenue sharing includes renewable energy, Lexis, accessed 7-4-13, HG]
In addition to the renewable measures, the bill's authors are considering
other options to gain Democratic support. For Landrieu; Sen. Mark
Warner, D-Va.; and other lawmakers in states with the potential for
offshore oil and gas drilling, the bill would immediately entitle their
constituents to between 27.5% and 37.5% of energy production
revenues, instead of having to wait until 2017 for the second phase
of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act to take effect.
Landrieu, whose state has already collected more than $6 million from phase
one of the revenue-sharing law, is also pushing to remove the $500 million
annual revenue cap included in the 2006 measure. "It's there for budget
scoring reasons," Dillon said. "But that's something that's being discussed."
The bill's sponsors also may be open to considering popular
measures that were used to push previous attempts at revenue
sharing. Dillon said the authors would "be happy" to revisit the issue
of offshore drilling safety, but he said that since the reform measure
died in 2011, the DOI and the Obama administration "were able to do
a lot of those things they wanted to do administratively." He said, "So
we're not sure at this moment if there's any need for legislation."
The clean energy trust fund also may be on the table. Murkowski also has
talked to Wyden about "taking another look at how we finance deployment of
new technologies," Dillon said. However, he cautioned that "we are still
working with co-sponsors and Landrieu on the revenue sharing, so the details
may change, but this is just what the outline looks like at this moment."
Reaction to the prospective legislation from industry groups across the
spectrum has so far been cautiously optimistic. The American Petroleum
Institute supports expanded offshore oil and gas production, "and state
revenue sharing should be a part of that equation," the trade group's
upstream director, Erik Milito, said in an email.
Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch said in an
email that, "in general, we are supportive of revenue sharing
between the federal and state governments as it has worked well for
other energy sectors." The American Wind Energy Association did not
immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Bureau of Land
Management has approved 18 solar energy projects on federal land that, if

built, will produce more than 6,100 MW of power, according to DOI figures.
Since 2009, seven wind projects worth nearly 3,900 MW also have been
approved; 566 MW of wind energy had been approved on federal land prior to
that.
The bill's sponsors remain confident that their efforts to broaden the appeal
of revenue sharing to more states and constituencies will help this latest
measure secure passage in the 113th Congress. "We want to move this
legislation," Dillon said. "This isn't a message bill; this is something we think
is important to actually accomplish."

Bipartisan Support for Oil & Gas Development

Theres bipartisan support for oil and gas development
Straessle, API Spokesman, 6-5-13
[Brian, 6-05-13, American Petroleum Institute, Support for Expanding
Offshore Energy Development Is Broad, Bipartisan, http://www.api.org/newsand-media/news/newsitems/2013/june-2013/support-for-expanding-offshoreenergy-development-is-broad-bipartisan, accessed 7-05-13, AMS]
There is broad and bipartisan support from the public and
policymakers at the state and federal level for expanding access to
offshore oil and natural gas development, API Director of Upstream &
Industry Operations Erik Milito told reporters this afternoon:
The United States has an opportunity that few nations ever get. We
have a chance to be a dominant player in global energy markets and
guarantee our energy security for decades ahead. Achieving this feat
must include tapping into oil and natural gas resources off our coasts
in the Atlantic, Pacific, the Arctic and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
There is broad support from both policymakers and the public, and
we need to begin taking the steps to ensure the nations long-term
energy security. Offshore oil and natural gas production is a longterm effort that requires long-term planning.
We urge President Obama to work with Congress, the states and the industry
to take advantage of the valuable opportunity presented by expanding
access to offshore energy production and by expanding revenue sharing for
coastal states. The benefits for American families, businesses, and our longterm energy security are too great to let this opportunity slip away.

Oil & Gas Lobby Supports Drilling

Plans popular with oil and gas lobbies outweighs the
link
Porretto, Associated Press, 9

(John, 6/19/9, Associated Press, Oil lobby floods D.C.,

http://www.telegram.com/article/20090619/NEWS/906190443/1002, Accessed
7/9/13)
HOUSTON Oil and gas companies have accelerated their spending
on lobbying faster than any other industry, training their gusher of
profits on Washington to fight new taxes on drilling and slow efforts to move
the nation off fossil fuels. The industry spent $44.5 million lobbying
Congress and federal agencies in the first three months of this year,
on pace to shatter last year's record. Only the drug industry spent more.
Last year's total of $129 million was up 73 percent from two years
earlier. That's a faster clip than any other major industry, according
to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. From the late 1990s
through the first half of this decade, the oil industry spent roughly $50 million
to $60 million a year on lobbying. It ramped up lobbying in 2006, when
Democrats retook Congress, and further as President Barack Obama took
office. They're under attack, they're ramping up their operations and
they've got money to spend, said Tyson Slocum, who runs the
energy program at watchdog group Public Citizen. They're in a
much better position than other industries to draw upon financial
resources for their lobbying effort. Billions of dollars in oil profits in
recent years have made the industry a target for new and higher taxes on
exploration and drilling. Oil companies and refiners are also trying to blunt
the impact of costly climate change legislation pushed by Obama. While most
oil and gas executives acknowledge the nation needs cleaner energy, they
say lawmakers are misguided about how quickly it can happen. They warn
that taxes and tighter rules on exploration could cripple the industry before
new technology is developed. Complex issues like that require additional
communication and effort to ensure lawmakers understand our positions,
said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest
publicly traded oil company. Exxon Mobil was the biggest spender in the
first quarter, pumping $9.3 million into Washington three times
what it spent a year ago, according to House disclosure reports. In its
House filing, Exxon noted it lobbied on high-profile topics such as climate and
tax legislation, as well as provisions regarding the chemical industry,
education and health care. Combined, the three largest U.S. oil
companies Exxon, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips spent
about $22 million on lobbying in the first quarter. Smaller,
independent companies that produce the bulk of the nation's crude
and natural gas are spending millions, too. They're spending more
even as profits have subsided. The big three U.S. oil companies spent just
$12.4 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter. First-quarter spending on
lobbying by the oil industry trailed only drugmakers and health products
companies, which spent $66.6 million. I can tell you, I've had substantially

more visits than usual, said Rep. Gene Green, whose south Texas district is
in the heart of oil country. Among his callers, he said, have been
representatives of ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to discuss climate-change
legislation and other matters. To a degree, the investment appears to be
paying off. On Wednesday, a Senate committee voted to lift a ban on
drilling across a vast area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provision,
which the industry pushed for, is included in a bill that would expand the use
of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The bill now goes to the
full Senate. Democrats from oil states have also managed to get rid of a
provision in an anti-pollution bill to require refiners to meet a standard on
low-carbon motor fuel. Refiners say the bill would still be devastating to
business. Most major industries have increased what they spend on
lobbying, but no one has done so at a faster clip over the past two
years than oil and gas companies, according to data from the Center
for Responsive Politics. The enormous amount of money funneled to
Washington by energy companies comes after some members of Congress
suggested slapping the big oil companies with a windfall profits tax last year,
when Americans were seething over $4-a-gallon gas. Democrats who
also took the majority of state legislatures and governorships in
2006 traditionally have not been as cozy with the oil sector as
Republicans, and the energy lobby has spent the past few years
trying to make inroads. You'll often see a correlation between
spending and an industry or company that's in the hot seat, said
Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics' executive
director. That will be enough to get them to hire additional guns
and direct more money to lobbying.

Offshoring Drilling EXTN

Pisses off Obamas base
Maize 10 Kennedy, Copenhagen: The Case for Climate Adaptation, Managing
Power, March 1,
http://www.managingpowermag.com/opinion_and_commentary/Copenhagen-TheCase-for-Climate-Adaptation_227.html)
subsidies for nuclear power, clean coal, and
offshore drilling, designed to appeal to Republicans . But that reach across the
partisan divide likely will enrage Obamas base among liberals and
environmentalists. The predictable outcome: more gridlock and name-calling. No action.
Energy legislation is dead for 2010, except for possible

That Tanks capital

Campbell, 11 (James E., Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department
and the University of Buffalo, Political Forces on the Obama Presidency: From Elections to Governing,
http://www.polsci.buffalo.edu/documents/ObamaPresidencyChapter4.pdf)
Since neither the ideological base of a party not its supporters in the center can be ignored-and since
both have different demandspresidents must arrive at some balance between them. In no small part,

the success of presidents in governing depends on their success in striking the right
balance between governing to please their partys base and governing to please the
political center. Like every presidency before his, this is the challenge for
Obamas presidency. Its success in governing the nation, as well as the possibility of a second
term, may hinge on how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing to his liberal base
and simultaneously to his supporters in the political center. The principal reason why a presidents

success in office depends on his ability to maintain the support of the presidents
electoral coalition (the combined partisan base and centrist supporters) is that
this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally stable, a president should
expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that supported him in his
election. As a consequence, the success of a president in office depends to a great
extent on his ability to maintain both the support of his base and the center. Just as the
presidents electoral success depended on maintaining his electoral coalition, his success in
governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In effect, there is
no bright line between the politics of governing and the politics of elections. In its most basic sense, the
permanent campaign to maintain the presidents constituency of supporters from election to office and
on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.

Plan is a flip flop

Sexton 12 John, 3/30/12, http://www.breitbart.com/BigGovernment/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas
Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new
offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years: The announcement by
the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to
Yesterday the

determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Potential for spills is a political firestorm

Schoen 10 (John Schoen is a writer for NBC. BP Spill Clouds Future of U.S. Oil
Drilling, May 28, 2010,
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/breaking/BP_spill_clouds_future_of_U_S__oil_drilling95099234.html date accessed: 2/2/13) TM
offshore drilling was poised to play a greater role meeting in the nations energy
But the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has brought an abrupt reversal to that

Just a few months ago,

needs.

policy and ushered in more restrictions on new exploration, tighter controls of existing wells and higher costs for oil companies. I continue
to believe that domestic oil production is important, President Barack Obama told reporters at a Thursday news conference. But I also

Some have
likened the spill to the 1979 partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island
a turning point in U.S. energy policy that would effectively cap expansion of nuclear power for decades. Just as
believe we can't do this stuff if we don't have confidence that we can prevent crises like this from happening again.

Three Mile Island didnt put an end to nuclear power production, the BP disaster wont put a stop to deep water drilling in the Gulf. For at least

the future of U.S. offshore drilling has suddenly

become as murky as the oily Gulf waters fouled by BP's runaway wellhead a mile underwater. Even if the ongoing topkill effort to
the next decade, the need for oil is just too great. But

cap the leaking well is successful, the legacy of the disaster and the final tally of the environmental and financial damage wont be known
for years. There is a long term study needed Im talking decades to really fully understand the consequences of this spill, said John
Stegeman, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. So that when the next one comes along and there will be others,
whether theyre this big our not we can enhance our ability to understand and deal with and predict consequences of future spills. For now,

the spill has brought new offshore drilling to a virtual standstill. On Thursday, the Obama
administration announced a six-month moratorium on deep water oil and gas drilling and
ordered the shutdown of offshore exploratory wells already operating until they meet new safety requirements. Public outrage over
BPs inability to stop the runway well has created a political firestorm. Congress has held a blizzard of hearings on

the cause of the accident and the implications for future drilling. Pictures of tarred beaches and oil-fouled pelicans in the Gulf Coast have
intensified a decades-long debate weighing the need to expand domestic oil supplies against the risk of environmental damage. Supporters of
expanded drilling argue the country cant afford to stop looking for new domestic oil supplies. "If the delay is for a season to ensure we have
the highest levels of protection in place, that's one thing," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member the Senates Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, on Thursday. But if it means that existing permits are allowed to lapse that's not acceptable to me or

political battle lines over U.S. energy policy are complex. Over the past decade,
multiple skirmishes have been fought between bipartisan alliances of energy-producing and energy-consuming
Alaska." The

states. The divisions are further complicated by the often conflicting goals of energy policy related to oil natural gas, coal, wind, solar, etc.

Offshore drillings a partisan disaster

Hobson 12 (Margaret Hobson, daily coverage of environmental and energy
politics and policy., "Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years
since Gulf spill", 4/18/12 www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1 date
accessed: 2/3/13) TM
President

Obama is embracing the offshore

gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but

Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11
Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes
oil and

were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history,

offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil
drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and
central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell

PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of
Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such
survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make
offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven
members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the
Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill
preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by
government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per

Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political
capital. The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans
and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough . And
gallon,

independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in
Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy
was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a
strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized
on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental
protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil
development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of

Obama isn't going to

convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas
proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle
Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and

path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is
in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a
six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the
early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off
Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic.
The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due
to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the
moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor.

Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a
series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially

allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted
by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Most recent evidence ev proves partisan divide

Holt 1/7 (David Holt- President of the Consumer Energy Alliance , January 7, 2013,
Energy in the Next 4 Years, January 7, 2013
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/whats-ahead-in-2013-for-energy.php, date
accessed: 2/3/13) TM
Given the partisan divide in Congress, enactment of significant energy or
environmental legislation dealing with key issues such as energy efficiency, Renewable
Fuels Standard reform, and offshore development, will be extremely difficult and
Congressional oversight of the federal regulatory agencies will be highly partisan and largely
ineffective.

Oil lobbies hate your aff

Marex News 11 January 19, 2011, Gas-Only Drilling in Offshore Moratorium
Areas Suggested, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/2005-10-20gas-onlydrilling-in-offshore-moratori
Oil and gas industry groups are criticizing a provision in House offshore drilling legislation that would
allow the government to offer "natural gas-only" leases in areas that are currently off-limits to new
production. The criticism is included in wider comments by petroleum producers to the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), which has begun collecting public comments as it begins preparing an outer continental shelf leasing plan for
2007-2012. MMS asked for comment on the gas-only concept. Gas-only leasing was included in a bill by House Resources Committee
Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA.) that allows states to "opt-out" of offshore leasing bans. States exercising the option could allow gas-only
leasing, or oil and gas leasing. Senate legislation by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN.) -- and supported by chemical companies and other

API), in comments this week to

says gas-only and gas-preference leasing would offer the "false promise" of future
supplies. The group says the concept would create uncertainties that could dampen
investment, since it is impossible to predict with certainty what types of resources
will be in an area. "A company might spend up to $80 million to buy a lease, conduct seismic testing, obtain the necessary
permits, and drill a well(s) to determine whether any resources are present in amounts that make the prospect economic," the group says. " A
company is unlikely to know if it had met the gas only or gas preference requirement until the
capital investment had been made. Companies will be reluctant to spend tens of
millions of dollars to explore for and develop a prospect, only to be forced to abandon
the resource, stranding substantial investments." Another set of comments submitted jointly by several
groups -- including the Domestic Petroleum Council and the Independent Petroleum
Association of America -- also criticizes the idea, calling it unnecessary. "Oil can be produced in a safe manner
industries that rely on the costly fuel -- also accepts the idea. However, the American Petroleum Institute (
MMS,

on the OCS, and industry has clearly done so for over 30 years," the groups say, adding that "since it is not always clear prior to drilling
whether a field will yield natural gas, oil, or both, it seems inconsistent with the principle of conservation of the resource to leave recoverable
oil deposits behind in order to drill new wells for natural gas elsewhere."

Plan costs political capital

MART 8 Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, This section includes quotes from
Andrew Spitzer, Founder of the Energy and Power Group at Harris and Williams Co.,
and Douglas Korn of Irving Place Partners. Combustible; The volatility of the energy
sector has turned the industry upside down. Top players in the space discuss what
this means for investors and how dealmakers can capitalize., Dec 1, Lexis
But its also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide
basis. Ultimately, we have to focus on domestic production to help with the supply issue, and,
internationally, see if we cant encourage the national oil companies to open up more acreage for
competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem. Mergers & Acquisitions: Is it even
possible, though, to completely eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in
our lifetime? Spitzer:The economics certainly make it extremely challenging, and frankly,
without the political willpower to put in a variety of reforms whether its CAFE
standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors its not something that would get done
without some form of government intervention. Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market
and the governments response have created a very difficult fiscal situation going into

2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts and that overlays all of
the government support to shore up the markets. You have to go back to the question of
whether or not there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why
we haveto become less reliant on foreign energy; from a geopolitical point of view, from a carbon
emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, How do we make that happen in an

environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints.
Thats going to be the real challenge. Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation
policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are dealing with is going to be
tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to push
through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed.

Plan can only hurt Obama only opposition to the plankills

democrat support
Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18,
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years
since Gulf spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development
policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil
spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are
nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling
ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf
of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to
allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas
and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the
way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30
years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also
taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill
Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill
commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the
Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,
environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A
report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully
inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per
gallon, Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political
capital. The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The

Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far
enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric . According to
the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand
what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was
"described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became
enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A
recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey
found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental
protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that
political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the
nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of
Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't
going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals,
Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's
pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan,
minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and
gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month
moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically
reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama
backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan
lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White
House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of
Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration
offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill.
When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the
Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills

that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing

development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the
Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas
plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have
offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison,
Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and
excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.

No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives wont give

Obama credit for it
Walsh 11, Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, Why Obamas Offshore Drilling
Plan Isnt Making Anyone Happy, http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamasoffshore-drilling-plan-isnt-making-anyone-happy/#ixzz26snhDbbI
Nonetheless, Obama has set a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater
domestic oil production is going to have to be a part of thatincluding oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately
for the President, no ones likely to cheer him . Conservatives and the oil industry wont
be happy until just about every square foot of the country is available for drillingthough it is
worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obamaand environmentalists arent
going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling. With energy, as with so many other
issues for Obama, its lonely at the center.

Empirics
E&E Daily 12 (Environment and Energy Daily, 1/17, lexis)
Despite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures, the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee didn't see a single measure debated on the Senate
floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is likely to keep the pressure on
Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his time in the Senate comes to a close at
the end of this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of his upcoming clean energy standard
legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much traction among Republicans in either chamber -- a fact
Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to start debate on the issue. Other
highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year kept up its famously bipartisan
appearances, churning out an impressive 61 bills. But the panel still suffered from bouts of
partisanship that brought action on certain issues -- like a response to the 2010 Gulf of
Mexico oil spill -- to a standstill. The addition of several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the
roster also caused some strife at committee meetings and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial
bills. Head-butting isn't likely to go away on key issues as election-year politics dominate
discussions throughout the Capitol. CES: Bingaman has vowed to float legislation early this session that
would create a federal clean energy standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their
electricity from low-carbon sources in the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get
ample face time in the committee, but partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House
will likely prevent it from moving beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last year
cleared dozens of smaller energy bills on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009
energy bill that stalled in the full Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate
leaders to move on some of those measures as he sees the clock ticking on his time in the Senate.
Offshore drilling: Efforts last year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after
ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal
revenue-sharing language in a bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't
likely to advance the legislation this session, but the committee could take a look at other
offshore drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil
industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while environmentalists
and many Democrats say it already infringes on too many sensitive areas.

Forces political energy fights- saps capital

Geman 10
[Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-]

expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico

would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in the fight
over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obamas
plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power,

research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new
support. One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the

But the White House and the

architects of Senate legislation Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they
seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. Drilling off the
Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg
said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and
energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council also slammed the proposal.
opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states.

Offshore drilling costs capital upsets base

Numerick, 10 (Kevin, "Does the President Treat his Political Opponents Fairly?",
Helium, September 5, http://www.helium.com/debates/239736-does-presidentobama-treat-his-political-opponents-fairly/side_by_side)
President Obama has tried to re-implement nuclear power, which disturbed his base ,
but is strongly supported by most republicans as a viable and must-have source of energy
production in the future. Not long after, he went even further and spoke of adding more
off-shore drilling, which really went against his base of supporters. Regardless,
the Republican Party still said no, accusing him of playing politics. Shortly after, the BP
Deep Water Horizon event happened. President Obama is also a supporter of Clean Coal Technology
which is certainly considered a bipartisan goal, though many Democrats disagree with it
fiercely.

Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional moratoria, 5-266,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)
With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to
open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill,
environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry groups say momentum is on their
side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria on most
offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more
votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy
package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (RCalif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States that opt-out
would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the

bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient
numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive than Peterson's but
still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes
to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. " The bottom

line is that [the] vote proves that people care about our coasts, and any proposal that
comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected." Also, a House floor vote last week that
would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an
environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles
that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only proposal . One lobbyist who works on
environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out
idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal
(R-La.) that largely mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. " I don't
see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on
the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground.
I am not sure if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on
Peterson's plan "proves a nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet
the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm
election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more

Democrats oppose wider offshore leasing.

1NC- Offshore Drilling

Forces political energy fights- saps capital
Geman 10 (Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-)
expanded drilling
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional approval.
That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power,

Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays
leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note
Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an
opening to woo new support. One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling
OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by

the White House and the

architects of Senate legislation Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.),
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) risk losing
support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they
seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
attacked the plan Wednesday. Drilling off the Virginia coast would
endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and vibrant coastal
economies, Lautenberg said in a prepared statement.
Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a
compromise climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra
Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council also slammed the
proposal.
restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states. But

2NC- Offshore Drilling

Plan is a flip flop
Sexton 12 (John, 3/30/12, http://www.breitbart.com/BigGovernment/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas)
Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic
which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the
Atlantic coast for at least five years: The announcement by the Interior
Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental
survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Tanks capital
Goddard 9 (Taegan, Creator Political Wire, (One of the Most Widely-Read
and Influential Political Web Sites on the Internet), "Does Obama Practice a
Different Kind of Politics?", CQ Politics, 3-19, http://innovation.cq.com/
liveonline/51/landing)

Dan from Philadelphia: How quickly is Obama burning through his political
capital? Will he have anything left to actually keep some of his promises?
With potential shifts from his campaign stances on the question of
Gitmo, Iraq troop withdrawals and taxing employer healthcare
benefits, it seems he is in for tough fights on all fronts. # Taegan
Goddard: That's a great question. I think Obama spends some of his
political capital every time he makes an exception to his principles -such as hiring a lobbyist to a key position or overlooking an
appointee not paying their taxes. Policy reversals such as the ones
you note burn through even more of this precious capital.

Environmental groups hate the plan Hobson 12 (Margaret, Offshore Drilling: Obamas Development Plans
Gain Little Political Traction in Years Since Gulf Spill)
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1, 4/18/12)

While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken
steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill
Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill
commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the
Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,

An environmental group was less

complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the
measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully
inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and
gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, Obama's offshore oil
development policies aren't winning him any political capital . The
environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The
Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House
hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the
president's rhetoric.
environmental protection and oil spill preparation.

Pisses off Obamas base

Maize 10 (Kennedy, Copenhagen: The Case for Climate Adaptation,

Managing Power, March 1,
http://www.managingpowermag.com/opinion_and_commentary/CopenhagenThe-Case-for-Climate-Adaptation_227.html)
Energy legislation is dead for 2010, except for possible subsidies for
nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore drilling, designed to appeal
to Republicans. But that reach across the partisan divide likely will
enrage Obamas base among liberals and environmentalists. The
predictable outcome: more gridlock and name-calling. No action.

That Tanks capital

Campbell 11 (James E., Distinguished Professor of Political Science and
Chair of the Department and the University of Buffalo, Political Forces on the
Obama Presidency: From Elections to Governing,
http://www.polsci.buffalo.edu/documents/ObamaPresidencyChapter4.pdf)
Since neither the ideological base of a party not its supporters in the center can be ignored-and since
both have different demandspresidents must arrive at some balance between them. In no small part, the
success of presidents in governing depends on their success in striking the right balance between
governing to please their partys base and governing to please the political center. Like every presidency

Obamas presidency. Its success in governing

the nation, as well as the possibility of a second term, may hinge on
how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing
to his liberal base and simultaneously to his supporters in the
political center. The principal reason why a presidents success in
office depends on his ability to maintain the support of the
presidents electoral coalition (the combined partisan base and
centrist supporters) is that this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally
before his, this is the challenge for

stable, a president should expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that

the success of a president in office

depends to a great extent on his ability to maintain both the support
of his base and the center. Just as the presidents electoral success depended on maintaining his
supported him in his election. As a consequence,

electoral coalition, his success in governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In
effect, there is no bright line between the politics of governing and the politics of elections. In its most
basic sense, the permanent campaign to maintain the presidents constituency of supporters from
election to office and on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.

Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional
moratoria, 5-26-6,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)
efforts to open
more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on
Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry groups say
With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races,

momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing
congressional moratoria on most offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John
Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to
an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee
Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas
drilling bans. States that opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists
are hopeful the bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will
not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive
than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance

of winning changes to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview

people care about our coasts, and

any proposal that comes through that hurts our coasts will be
rejected." Also, a House floor vote last week that would also have lifted congressional coastal oil
Friday. "The bottom line is that [the] vote proves that

drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering
both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only proposal. One lobbyist
who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out
idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely
mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out

passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on the floor," added an
aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground. I am not sure if he is
there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a
nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher
if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on
offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more

offshore leasing.

Democrats oppose wider

Link Offshore Drilling

Expanding offshore drilling spurs partisan battle and
committee gridlock
E&E Daily, 1-17-2012 Committees prep their agendas but will

anything really get done? http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?

p=1217 DA: 6/5/14
the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee didn't see a single measure
debated on the Senate floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (DDespite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures,

N.M.) is likely to keep the pressure on Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his
time in the Senate comes to a close at the end of this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of
his upcoming clean energy standard legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much traction among
Republicans in either chamber -- a fact Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to
start debate on the issue. Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year
kept up its famously bipartisan appearances, churning out an impressive 61 bills. But the panel still

suffered from bouts of partisanship that brought action on certain

issues -- like a response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- to a standstill. The addition of

several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the roster also caused some strife at committee meetings

Head-butting isn't likely to go

away on key issues as election-year politics dominate discussions throughout the Capitol. CES:
and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial bills.

Bingaman has vowed to float legislation early this session that would create a federal clean energy
standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from low-carbon sources in
the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get ample face time in the committee, but
partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House will likely prevent it from moving
beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last year cleared dozens of smaller energy bills
on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009 energy bill that stalled in the full
Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate leaders to move on some of
those measures as he sees the clock ticking on his time in the Senate. Offshore drilling:

Efforts

last

year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after ranking member Lisa
Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal revenue-sharing
language in a bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't likely to advance the

the committee could take a look at other offshore

drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil
industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while
environmentalists and many Democrats say it already infringes on
too many sensitive areas.
legislation this session, but

Offshore drilling sparks fierce opposition in committees

and senate
E&E Daily, 1-17-2012 Committees prep their agendas but will
anything really get done? http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?
p=1217 DA: 6/5/14

The battles won't be pretty. But they -- along with the campaigns, of course -- will be
what occupies Washington during the next year. What follows is a look at the likely agendas for key
congressional committees over the next several months: Cont HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES The agenda for 2012 Rep.

Energy development on the nation's lands and waters

will continue to set the agenda for the Natural Resources Committee
Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).

in 2012. Expect to see plenty of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his agency heads on the witness stand as the
committee continues its assault on the Obama administration's policies. "Republicans on the committee will continue to
focus on creating new American jobs, reducing the debt and federal deficit, protecting access to our nation's natural
resources and conducting oversight of the administration's policies and actions," said committee spokeswoman Jill Strait.
Last year saw 115 hearings and markups of a dizzying number of bills. "I think 2012 will be equally as busy," Strait said.
Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011

The last session included 115 hearings and saw the

passage of several significant Republican-led bills promoting

offshore drilling, renewable energy, copper mining, and hunting and fishing, among many others. But
while some of the bills passed the full House, only a few small-scale proposals passed
the Senate, Democrats point out. Regardless of who is to blame, lawmakers know they will need
to work much harder to achieve bipartisan compromises this session, particularly in an election year. Cutting red tape: The
committee's focus will largely mirror last year's agenda: job creation through increased energy development on public
lands and waters. Expect early action on a trio of bills introduced late last year that would allow oil and gas leasing in the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and reinstate a scrapped George W. Bush
administration plan to promote oil shale development in the West. The bills, which are designed to raise new revenues to
shore up the Highway Trust Fund, will see action "in the coming weeks or months," according to a statement this month by
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Greenwire, Jan. 9). Renewables: The committee will continue seeking ways to
streamline the federal permitting process. A committee aide said Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) plans to push for
House passage of four bills his panel reported last July that would shorten National Environmental Policy Act reviews for
low-impact renewable energy projects. A committee aide said the panel will explore other ways to unlock the vast
potential to site wind, solar, hydro and other energy projects on public lands. Endangered species: In addition to NEPA, the
committee will seek to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, a nearly 40-year-old law critics contend has stymied access
to domestic resources. At its first hearing on the matter last month, Republicans on the committee blamed the frequency
of citizens' lawsuits that many argue have hamstrung the Fish and Wildlife Service (E&E Daily, Dec. 7, 2010). The
committee will hold additional oversight hearings to examine the law's strengths and weaknesses and explore potential
improvements. The committee may also review a landmark settlement between the Obama administration and
environmentalists that will force the administration to issue final listing decisions on hundreds of species over the next
five years. Oversight: The committee will continue its oversight of major Obama administration policies, including its fiveyear offshore leasing plan, a proposed rewrite of the Office of Surface Mining's stream buffer rule, national ocean planning
and the folding of OSM into the Bureau of Land Management. The committee heard from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
shortly after he released the agency's five-year leasing plan, which calls for continued sales in the Gulf of Mexico and
Alaska, but excluded the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, angering Republicans. Expect to see much more of Salazar on the
witness stand as his agency finalizes the leasing plan and issues other decisions on Alaskan offshore drilling, hydraulic
fracturing regulations and oil shale. Oceans: Hastings plans to continue his campaign against the administration's National
Ocean Policy. Spurred by last week's release of a draft implementation plan, Hastings said he would hold additional
hearings to vet the policy, which he warned could place portions of the ocean off-limits for recreation, fishing or
development. Hastings held two hearings last year on the plan, targeting it as a "burdensome" federal effort that could
destroy jobs and hinder economic growth. Marine advocates applauded the plan. Access: Republicans will continue
attacking Obama policies they argue have unfairly locked up public lands. While no markup has been set, the committee
will continue to push a bill to release tens of millions of acres of forests the Clinton administration placed off-limits to
roads and timber harvests. The bill, which would also lift interim protections by the Bureau of Land Management, is the
greatest threat to public lands in a generation, environmentalists have warned. Expect a continued focus on land
management decisions, including the new Forest Service planning rule, that could affect access for motorized users like

Democratic defense: Committee Democrats led

will continue to portray the majority as
beholden to fossil fuel interests, pointing to its failure to consider
the ranking member's proposal to implement offshore drilling
reforms recommended by the president's BP spill commission. They will
continue to point to deficit reduction measures that target oil industry tax
breaks; leased, but undeveloped, public lands ; and royalty-free mineral development. In
addition, committee Democrats say they will fight hard to stifle
Republican attempts to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
off-highway vehicles and snowmobiles.
by Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts

Refuge, new uranium claims near the Grand Canyon and limit or reduce funding for land acquisition and conservation. The
minority will also promote accelerated development of solar, wind and other clean energy on public lands.

Expanding offshore drilling only costs political capital

alienates dems and environmental lobby and GOP and
industry complain no matter what
Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter, 4-18-2012 OFFSHORE DRILLING:
Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf
spill
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1 DA: 6/5/14
OFFSHORE DRILLING:

Obama's development plans gain little political traction

in years since Gulf

spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig
exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history,

includes offshore

Obama's "all of the above" energy policy

aggressive
drilling plan

drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his

March 2010

. Since the moratorium on

offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House
appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is
also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama
administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's
oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,
environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully

Obama's offshore oil

development policies aren't winning him any political capital. The
environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The
Republicans and oil industry officials complain
inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,

that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters

are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means.
The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and
necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that

American voters are polarized on energy

issues

. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as

a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's

Obama isn't going to convince any

conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas
proposals
Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and

, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will

work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White
House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old
plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south
Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the
administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House
favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all
U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush
during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a
dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast. American Petroleum Institute officials say that Obama's policies have kept 87 percent of federal offshore acreage
off limits to oil and gas development. "We need more certainty in the process and knowledge that things are going to move forward at a much better pace so that companies can plan for and make investments in
U.S. projects," argued Erik Milito, API's group director for upstream and industry operations But White House officials take issue with API's explanation. Interior Department officials say that thanks to Obama
administration policies, more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable offshore oil and natural gas resources will be open to exploration and development in the next five years. "Those who claim that
the areas that will be offered constitute few total acres aren't paying attention to where the oil and gas resources are," Heather Zichal, Obama's deputy assistant for energy and climate change, wrote in a White
House blog. "[T]hat's where we are focusing our attention, in places like the Western Gulf and the Central Gulf, an offshore area which, according to our resource estimates, has nearly double the resource potential

environmentalists are fighting the administration's return to

Obama's pre-oil spill energy policies
of any other." Meanwhile,

. Charging that the White House and Congress are ignoring the lessons of the BP oil spill, the green

groups are focusing their opposition on the president's plans to advance oil and gas development along the Alaska shores and parts of the East Coast.

Plan unpopular - past votes prove

Darren Goode, staff writer, Politico, 5-18-2011, "Senate slams GOP drilling
bill", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55241.html DA: 6/5/14

A Senate Republican offshore drilling bill died Wednesday due to opposition

from Democrats and criticism from within the GOP that the measure didn't go far enough in enabling new
production. The 42-57 vote left sponsors well short of the needed 60 for the
motion to proceed to pass. Five Republicans voted no Sens. Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Richard Shelby,
Olympia Snowe and David Vitter. No Democrats voted yes; Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus didn't vote.

Most contentious energy issue drains capital and

support
Juliet Eilperin and Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post Staff Writer, 4-12010, President Obama opens new areas to offshore drilling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033100024.html?hpid=topnews DA:
6/5/14
Obama's decision, announced Wednesday, to approve new oil and gas drilling
off U.S. coasts for the first time in decades reflects a high-stakes calculation by the
White House: Splitting the difference on the most contentious energy
issues could help secure a bipartisan climate deal this year. In what could represent the biggest expansion of offshore
President

energy exploration in half a century, Obama announced that he will open the door to drilling off Virginia's coast, in other
parts of the mid- and south Atlantic, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in waters off Alaska. At the same time, he declared
off-limits the waters off the West Coast and in Alaska's Bristol Bay, canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and
called for more study before allowing new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. What Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar called "a new direction" in energy policy amounted to an offshore political gerrymander in which the
administration barred drilling near states where it remains unpopular -- California and New Jersey -- and allowed it in
places where it has significant support, such as Virginia and parts of Alaska and the Southeast. Some conservative critics

liberals decried the

risks to the environment. But the White House's key audience -- undecided senators who will
questioned whether the policy will have any real impact on energy production, while

determine whether a climate bill succeeds on Capitol Hill this year -- suggested that the move had helped revive the
legislation's prospects. A string of senators, including Alaska's Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R), Louisiana's Mary
Landrieu (D), New Hampshire's Judd Gregg (R), and Virginia Democrats Mark Warner and James Webb, praised the
strategy. They have urged the administration to use a climate bill to help boost domestic energy production, through
expansion of oil and gas drilling and nuclear power, and Begich and Gregg said Wednesday's announcement made them
more optimistic about a deal on the bill than they have been in months. Noting that Obama has also offered recent
support for more nuclear production, Gregg said such moves show that the administration is "genuinely trying to approach

the energy production issue in a multifaceted way and a realistic way, rather than listening to people on their left."
Landrieu concurred, saying that Obama is "sending as clear a signal as possible that he is willing to compromise in a way
that will bring forth a great energy and climate bill, and he wants Republicans to be a part of it." But coastal lawmakers
such as Democratic Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland joined environmentalists in blasting the

Wooing proponents
of drilling "cuts both ways," Cardin warned. "You can lose support if you do
things that have environmental risks."
change as unnecessary, and said it could jeopardize fisheries and tourist attractions.

Offshore drilling funding causes controversy GOP budget

conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,

do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget

conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe
most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But

fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing

Republicans

these necessary services to the American people, congressional

must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and
spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and

Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.

will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer

Impact on

oceans

places to hunt, fish, and relax.

public lands and
The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in
September determining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6
percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense
function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide
much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where
appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services
or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts
the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily
assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the
agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But
sequestration could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If
this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts,
tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather
prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive
from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the

Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate
as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S.
models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a
week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction
capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to
replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement
satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online.
During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and
Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially
causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development

of our

Energy development is an important

oceans

and legitimate use

lands and
. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore)
provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States

Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning,

studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer
comes from federal lands and waters.

significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,

ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on

the Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency
manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development
of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent
public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development,

progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Link Offshore Drilling Arctic

Arctic drilling contentious even bipartisan issues are
politicized and cause partisan fights
Arctic Power, an Alaska-based lobbying firm, 2010 Mid Term Elections
Could Help Alaskan Energy http://www.anwr.org/Politics/Mid-Term-ElectionsCould-Help-Alaskan-Energy.php DA: 6/7/14 **edited for offensive language

The US Mid-Term elections concluded with a large influx of Republican law makers signaling a change in US House committee chairmanships. With the departure of
Democrat lawmakers from the majority chairs, committees like the House Natural Resources Committee will switch to Republican control. Congressional Republicans, in
general, have been more sympathetic to Alaskan energy issues than Congressional Democrats.

With both issues of ANWR exploration and outer continental shelf

OCS) exploration

(
, Republicans in the House and Senate have made up the majority of yes votes throughout the history of debate on these
issues. In Alaska, neither issue has been traditionally partisan with both winning strong near unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats alike. ANWR exploration

has remained an extremely contentious and politicized issue on

Capitol Hill and it is hoped by many in Alaska the change in power will bring a greater chance for success. During the 110th Congress, soon to end, only
in particular

one vote on ANWR ever took place despite there being 18 ANWR bills introduced. This record pales compared to the 5 or 6 votes that Congress has sometimes averaged
on ANWR per Congressional term over the past 20 years. The issue of ANWR exploration however will still have a very difficult time of it during the 111th Congress due to
the fact that the Senate still remains in Democrat control and the President still remains decidedly against the issue. As a stand alone issue, ANWR will stand a slim chance
to pass in the Senate where a certain 60 votes will be required to overcome an expected partisan filibuster. However, the defensive position that ANWR and the State of
Alaska has been forced to take over the past two years will clearly switch to an offensive position with regard to promoting energy exploration legislation. The new make
up of the House on the other hand will clearly benefit Alaskas views. Speaker-Elect Boehner has visited the Arctic oil fields in the past and is strongly supportive of State of
Alaska exploration initiatives. The House over the past three decades has past ANWR legislation 12 times many votes of which Speaker-Elect Boehner has participated in.
Of particular interest in the next few months will be the make up of the Senate Energy Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. The Senate Energy
Committee will still be controlled by Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico with the expected Lisa Murkowski as Minority chair. The position of and seniority of
Murkowski will be beneficial strategically for promotion and passage of Alaska energy legislation. Should this makeup be changed for any reason between now and January
6th, prospects will possibly not be as good. In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings will decide if he will continue with Natural Resources Cmte. or move to the Rules Committee.
His replacement, if it happens, would probably be Sam Bishop of Utah who will take the helm as the full committee chairman. Rep. Bishop, like Rep. Hastings, has been a
strong supporter of ANWR and Alaska oil and gas legislation and will likely push pro development bills to the floor for vote. Much to the dismay of many Democrats and

the partisan politicizing of issues such as ANWR in the US Congress has

prevented much progress in the State of Alaska. Fully 60% of the State of Alaska is controlled by the Federal
Government and Congress not by the State. Near all of new prospect land on and offshore is controlled by
Congress and the Dept. of Interior and with the flow level of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System TAPS nearing critically low levels the need to approve proRepublicans in Alaska,

development legislation on Capitol Hill could not be more immediate for the State. The Alaska State Legislature has near unanimously and consistently supported oil and

It has been extraordinarily

frustrating to see how these issues have been turned into politicized
poker chips on Capitol Hill greatly [slowing] positive growth and change in the State of
Alaska. One third of the economy of the State of Alaska is based on oil, with 87% of the tax base coming from oil. The future exploration of
OCS leases, ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska will be dependent on successful passage of
legislation in Congress.
gas exploration issues on and off shore in the Arctic without any partisanship.

Arctic drilling costs PC drawn into the climate change

debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American
Security Project, a non-partisan national security think tank 9-26- 2013
America is failing to meet challenges of a changing Arctic
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic DA: 6/7/14
Americas Arctic
made it difficult

, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness

for us

to take advantage of the

vast

resources

have

and enormous opportunity of the region.

Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it
collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,

The U
fullest extent
Russia will certainly set the standards.

nited

of International Law

S has not claimed territory in the Arctic to the

because the Congress refuses
tates

fully

U.S.

to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four

nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They
are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can
have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the

U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols).
The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over
36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays
federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently
constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly

because of the political paralysis on climate policy

it is impossible to have a rational debate
large portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the
very existence
we will not be able to make the
investments
to take advantage of
Arctic
committed to expanding their naval presence. Perhaps it is

in

Congress and in state governments that

about the impacts of climate change.

So long as a

climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska,

necessary

a changing

OTEC
OTEC costs political capital requires massive funding for
commercialization
Dorminey, Science Journalist, 2012,
(Bruce, "Our Massive Marine Energy Potential: Scouring The Tropics For Thermal
Energy," Think Progress, 5-8, PAS) thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479526/ourmassive-marine-energy-potential-scouring-the-tropics-for-thermal-energy/ 6-28-14
OTEC production converts heat energy from seawater into kinetic energy using the
oceans naturally steep temperature gradient. Its this juxtaposition of tropical (and
sometimes subtropical) subsurface seawater at temperatures typically above 80
degrees F. and below 40 degrees F. that makes OTEC possible. An OTEC plant literally
pumps the warm surface seawater through a heat exchanger connected to a closed
circuit filled with several hundred tons of liquid ammonia. Since ammonia boils at
lower temperatures and at lower pressures than water, once the warm seawater hits
the heat exchanger, it causes the ammonia to vaporize and expand in volume. As
this ammonia vaporizes, it creates pressure to run a turbine coupled to a generator.
In most cases, the resulting electricity would be delivered onshore via an undersea
cable. Once this ammonia vapor exits the turbine, it flows through a second heat
exchanger that is connected to a cold water pipe carrying tons of seawater pumped
from depths of 3000 ft. This cold seawater, in turn, condenses the spent ammonia
vapor back into liquid and the whole OTEC process begins again. But despite the fact
that the idea for the technology is more than a century old; to date, OTEC has only
been successfully demonstrated on small scales of less than a quarter of a megawatt
(MW) and has yet to produce utility-scale power. Funding certainly is the biggest
obstacle for OTEC, said Gerard Nihous, an ocean engineer at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa. While nothing we have learned in the past suggests that OTEC has
major technological hurdles left to clear, OTEC cannot be considered ready for
commercialization. A multi-year operational record at sea would help resolve
lingering uncertainties and fix the design bugs that are bound to be revealed.

Link OTEC EXTN

OTEC costs political capital requires massive funding to make
affordable
Think Progress, 2010,
(Climate Guest Contributor, "Energy and Global Warming News for March 23: Wind
energy investments to hit $65 billion this year; World Bank helps Indonesia increase
geothermal energy," 3-23, PAS)
thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/23/205691/energy-and-global-warming-news-formarch-23-wind-energy-investments-to-hit-65-billion-this-year-world-bank-helpsindonesia-increase-geothermal-energy/ 6-28-14
Lockheed Martin began work last week on computer tools that could help determine
where temperature differences between an oceans warm surface water and the
colder deep water might be ideal for generating electricity. Funded by $1 million in
federal grants, the research is aimed at commercializing ocean thermal energy
conversion (OTEC). One $500,000 project intends to develop a geographic
information system-based tool to help identify where electricity production is possible
and gauge how much could be generated, said Rob Varley, the project manager. The
other $500,000 grant will fuel research on the cost of running OTEC systems over
their expected lifetimes of 20 to 30 years. OTEC technology, which depends on the
intake and discharge of large volumes of water, can be run from floating platforms or
ships, or could be run onshore. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has said
the technology would be most likely applied to islands that have growing power
requirements and a dependence on imported oil. There are no OTEC units in
commercial use, Varley said. We believe it can be utilized, but the major obstacle is
going to be being able to get the cost of OTEC plants down to where they are
affordable, he said. In order for the technology to work, surface-water temperatures
must be about 36 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than temperatures about 3,280 feet
below, the Energy Department says. Tapping ocean thermal gradients also makes it
possible to provide seawater-based air conditioning that could reduce electricutilities electricity demands.

Algae Biofuels
Prefer our evidence; even if algae used to be bipartisan, it
has become politicized
Parker 12 (Alex M. Parker, journalist for the US News and World Report,
Algae Amendment Puts Biofuels Back in Energy Debate March 13, 2012,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/13/algae-amendment-putsbiofuels-back-in-energy-debate)
The cultivation of algae to create or enhance biofuels has, in the past,
been relatively non-controversial. But the issue became politicized
quickly after President Barack Obama mentioned it as a component of his energy platform last month.

Mocking the idea as a pie-in-the-sky response to the real-life problem of high gas prices, the
GOP presidential candidates have made it a regular laugh line on the
campaign trail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken to calling
Obama "President Algae." On Capitol Hill, the algae-as-fuel idea has
quickly become a symbol of wasteful government overreach among
conservative Republicans. "Algae will be a bad sequel to ethanol," says John Hart,
spokesman for Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who has lead charges to eliminate tax preferences or federal
standards which promote the use of corn-based ethanol.

Republicans dislike use of algae biofuel - HASC Defense

bill proves.

AIM 12

(http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/the-politics-of-algae-continued/ The Politics of Algae, continued

May 15, 2012 AlgaeIndustryMagazine.com, Date Accessed: 6.28.14)//BSpencer

Two articles out this week deftly explore the dilemma the algae, and
for that matter the entire bio fuels, industry finds itself in the wake
of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) recently passing the
2013 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 4130) banning the Defense
Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs
more than traditional fossil fuel. While the military itself has been an outspoken
supporter of the need to have more reliable and controllable fuel sources, the Republicandominated HASC feels the greater need to bring down costs,
especially the premiums that the military has been paying for earlystage green fuels; costs that have helped to cover some of the bio
fuels industrys development. In Eric Beidels piece in National Defense Magazine he calls
it the classic chicken and the egg conundrum, where the developing bio-fuels
industry needs the military to buy big, providing a demand signal
that could help reduce prices.

Republicans hate the plan, attack Obama for it

McAuliff 12 (Michael McAuliff, senior congressional reporter for the Huffington Post, Algae Biofuel
Proposal, Now Mocked By Republicans, Used To Have Their Support February 28, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/mitch-mcconnell-mocks-pre_n_1307862.html)

Republicans mounted an all-out offensive against President

Obama's energy initiatives Tuesday, even mocking him for an idea many of them used to like:
using algae to create biofuel. "Over the past few weeks the American
people have begun to feel the painful effects of President
Obama's energy policy," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Capitol Hill

declared in a Senate floor speech that ridiculed an energy plan Obama

detailed last week, which included the use of biofuel sources such as
algae. "As millions of Americans groaned at the rising cost of a gallon of gasoline, the
president took algae as a substitute for gas. Algae as a substitute for gas,"
McConnell said in apparent disbelief. "I think the American people
realize that a president who's out there talking about algae -algae! -- when we're having to choose between whether to buy groceries or fill up the tank is the one who

is out of touch," McConnell added, arguing that the way to bring down gas prices is to drill for
more oil. "Americans get this issue," McConnell said. "They get that we need to
increase oil production right here at home, not simply rely on pipe dreams
-- pipe dreams -- like algae or by wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on more failed clean energy
projects." McConnell was followed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who
suggested Obama's plans were no plans at all. "What the president does
favor is the Saudis increasing oil production, and increased use of solar, wind and algae
here at home," she said. "Does that really substitute for an energy
policy?"

Biofuel Costs PC
Investments and tax breaks for biofuels cost political
capital
Naylor 12 (Rosamond Naylor, Director of the Center of Food Security and the Environment, William Wrigley

Senior Fellow, Professor of Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University, Biofuels, Rural Development, and
the Changing Nature of Agricultural Demand April 11, 2012,
https://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/BiofuelsPaper.pdf)

The third and final theme draws on these points and addresses the question: Given the uncertainties and
public sector costs surrounding the development of liquid biofuels, should developing countries facing
high rates of food and energy insecurity invest in the industry? There is no universal answer to this
question; each country must evaluate its own economic and resource situation, and its institutional
capacity. This evaluation must be done with skill and great care, because the stakes for rural
development, hunger, resource depletion, and inequality are high. Adopting a strategy for biofuel growth
as a means of stimulating the agricultural economy, addressing domestic transportation fuel needs, and
enhancing foreign exchange reserves will require the creation of well functioning supply chains that can
generate economies of scale. To date, small isolated plants with new sources of feedstocks (e.g.,
Public investments in agricultural
productivity and infrastructure, as well as fuel mandates and tax
exemptions for private companies that are needed to build supply chains and ensure
long-run demand for biofuels, will have large opportunity costs in terms of fiscal
expenditures, land and water resources, and political capital.

jatropha) have thus far been too costly.

Offshore Nuclear
Aff gets spun as floating Chernobyl- unpopular
AP 6 (Associated Press, Russian world-first: A floating nuclear plant,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13316942/ns/world_newsworld_environment/t/russian-world-first-floating-nuclearplant/#.U3O1Kfk7uSo, June 14, 2006)

Environmental groups have sharply criticized the proposed floating

reactors. "Floating nuclear power plants are absolutely unsafe,
inherently so. There are risks of the unit itself sinking, there are risks in
towing the units to where they need to be," said Charles Digges, editor of
the Web site for the Norwegian-based environmental group Bellona. "They
(Russians) are sitting on so much oil and have so many other avenues to
alternative sources of energy for these particular regions where they would
use floating nuclear power plants ... which are cheaper to build, cheaper to
research," he said.

2NC- Floating SMR

Plan is attacked by powerful lobbies- causes backlash
Szondy 12 (David, Gizmag, "Feature: Small modular nuclear reactors - the
future of energy?," http://www.gizmag.com/small-modular-nuclearreactors/20860/)
Indeed, it is in government regulations that the modular reactors face their greatest challenges. Whatever the facts about
nuclear accidents from Windscale to Fukushima, a large fraction of the public,
especially in the West, is very nervous about nuclear energy in any form. There are
powerful lobbies opposed to any nuclear reactors operating and the regulations written up by
governments reflect these circumstances. Much of the cost of building nuclear plants is due to meeting all regulations, providing safety and
security systems, and just dealing with all the legal barriers and paperwork that can take years and millions of dollars to overcome. Modular
reactors have the advantage of being built quickly and cheaply, which makes them less of a financial risk, and factory manufacturing means
that a reactor intended for a plant that missed approval can be sold to another customer elsewhere. And some

SMRs are similar

red

enough to conventional reactors that they don't face the burden of being a "new" technology under skeptical scrutiny. However,

tape is still a very real thing.

And fear of accidents jack popularity

Bredimas and Nuttal 12 (Alexandre and William - Judge Business
School, "A Comparison of International Regulatory Organizations and
Licensing Procedures for New Nuclear Power Plants,
ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/opportunities/doc/legal_roadmap/2009_10
_28/eprg-bredimas.pdf)
At the heart of the process,

during

the

siting

public acceptance is a prerequisite

which is most important

step. If one accepts a site for a new nuclear plant, one must also accept wider

national or regional need for a new nuclear plant. Western

public anxiety towards nuclear

strongly after the accidents of Three-Mile Island, PA, USA in 1979 and
Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. Arguably, in addition, the modern public fundamentally mistrusts political

power emerged

elites and large companies. In the case of

because of

nuclear power mistrust can run

even

deeper

an historical association between nuclear innovation and the military .

The military legacies of nuclear power result in a widespread perception, and arguably a reality, of top-

Publics and other stakeholders are

likely to be highly sensitised to the democratic features of siting

down nuclear strategy surrounded by a climate of secrecy.

therefore

policy

and are likely to give great emphasis to safety issues during the licensing process of any new
nuclear plant.

SMRs do not circumvent backlash

Taso 11 (Firas Eugen Taso, 21st Century Civilian Nuclear Power and the

Role of Small Modular Reactors, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Tufts
University, May 2011
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/877618836, 8-2-12)
SMRs would not solve the public concern over
nuclear power. To the general public, they would still be nuclear
facilities, something that they do not understand and fear. Unless they were
proven and demonstrated, opposition would exist even for the smaller
demonstration projects. The NIMBY attitude would likely preclude
SMRs from being a game changer for nuclear power, unless
something changes dramatically, not only incrementally, in public perception.
Paolo Ferroni also mentions that

2NC- DOE $ Unpopular

Nuclear power R&D unpopular- spending
Yurman 12 (Dan Yurman, The Energy Collective Thinktank, Marketing
Communications Services for Energy Technologies, Member of the Advisory
Board, the Energy Collective, a project of Social Media Today, Launched the
official blog of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), In June 2011 I received a
special recognition award from the American Nuclear Society for work on
communication of nuclear energy science and engineering information to the
news media and the public during the Fukushima crisis in Japan, SMR
developers are racing to the market,
http://theenergycollective.com/node/77332, February 22, 2012)
DOE's 2013 budget flatlines support for new nuclear tech Its' a dark
time for expectations of new funding for nuclear reactor technology.
The Obama administration's budget request to Congress for DOE's nuclear
energy programs for fiscal year 2013 reflects it. Here are a few highlights of the
Obama administration's financial plans for nuclear energy R&D. The 2012 figure is the amount
appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year that ends next October and the 2013 figure is the

SMR licensing support is cut by $2 million from

Advanced reactor R&D and development
is slashed by $41 million from $115 million in 2012 to $74 million in 2013. Fuel cycle
R&D is nicked $9 million down from $186 million in 2012 to $175 million in 2013. Of this
amount $60 million is allocated to implement recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. So
what does it mean for SMRs? In a word, not much has changed from
2012. It will be an uphill battle for SMR developers of all types . A
amount requested by the President.

$67 million in 2012 to $65 million in 2013.

presidential budget request is just that - a request. It is not a decision. It is a presidential election year with
the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for a vote. Also, many incumbents are mindful of the fact
that public approval ratings for congress in general are in the single digits making a "throw the bums out"

turmoil surrounding decisions about federal

funding will be more intense than usual and that means nothing
should be taken for granted - especially the numbers in the
President's budget. Competition for nuclear R&D dollars is way down
the priority list for a deficit minded Congress that yet seeks to prove
to voters they matter for something.
spirit stronger than usual. The

Link Offshore Nuclear SMRs

SMRs drain capital politically nuclear
Peter Fairley, IEEE Spectrum, May 2010, "Downsizing Nuclear Power
Plants, spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/downsizing-nuclear-power-plants/0
DA: 6/11/14
there are political objections to SMRs. Precisely because they are
more affordable, they may well increase the risk of proliferation by
bringing the cost and power output of nuclear reactors within the reach
of poorer countries. Russias first SMR, which the nuclear engineering group Rosatom
expects to complete next year, is of particular concern. The Akademik Lomonosov is a floating
However,

nuclear power plant sporting two 35-MW reactors, which Rosatom expects to have tethered to an Arctic oil

The reactors portability prompted Greenpeace

Russia to call this floating plant the worlds most dangerous nuclear
project in a decade. SMRs may be smaller than todays reactors. But,
politically at least, theyre just as nuclear.
and gas operation by 2012.

Forced tradeoffs ensure fight on SMR incentives drawn

into broader budget battles and swamps bipart support
Margaret Ryan, Energy AOL reporter, 10-10-2011 Bipartisan Energy
Options Hostage in Congress http://energy.aol.com/2011/10/10/bipartisanenergy-options-hostage-in-congress/ DA: 6/11/14
Bipartisan Energy Options 'Hostage' in Congress Room for bipartisan
agreement on energy issues has narrowed drastically since the new Congress
took office in January, but there are still a few areas where progress might be made, according to Robert

Bipartisan
energy bills have been held "hostage," he said in 2009-10 by cap and
trade advocates and now by budget hawks. And it's not just energy Simon noted
Simon, majority staff director of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee.

the current Congress has passed just 69 bills since January, a fifth of the output of what President Harry
Truman in 1947 dubbed "the do-nothing Congress." Speaking to the US Association of Energy Economists
conference in Washington, DC October 10, Simon said his committee had crafted bipartisan agreement on
a range of issues in the last Congress, in 2009-10. Read more notes from the conference: USAEE Notebook:
DOE Weighing Export Price Effects. The panel voted out bills supporting a Clean Energy
Development Authority, a national Renewable Energy Standard, facilitation of transmission siting and
electric vehicle infrastructure, expanded energy research, small nuclear reactor support,
and efficiency improvements in manufacturing, building and appliances. Also supported last congressional
session were cybersecurity for electric grids, expansion of off-shore drilling and improved drilling safety
standards, more renewables on federal lands, and support for carbon capture and storage pilot projects.
This session, he said, the areas of bipartisan agreement have narrowed to energy
efficiency, expansion of existing hydropower, CCS projects, advanced vehicle research and nuclear

committee's bills never got floor votes in the previous

Congress because advocates of carbon cap and trade held other energy
bills "hostage" in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to force a vote on that House-passed
measure, Simon said. In this Congress, energy bills are hostage to the
financial debate, he said, with budget hawks are insisting that even
authorizations for any new or increased program include reductions
in other authorizations. Every program has its constituency, he noted, so
different energies are pitted against each other. In the past, those adjustments
research. The

have been made in appropriations bills, he said.

SMR subsidies are uniquely unpopular drawn into larger

energy spending fights
Gabriel Nelson and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters, 9-24-2012 DOE
Funding for Small Reactors Languishes as Parties Clash on Debt
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/09/24/3 DA: 6/11/14
top energy officials in the Obama administration have hailed the
promise of the new reactors, and they haven't shown any signs of a change of heart. DOE
spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said last week that the department is still reviewing
applications, but she did not say when a decision will be made . "This is an
Likewise,

important multiyear research and development effort, and we want to make sure we take the time during the review process to get the

That the grants haven't been given out during a

taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to creating new
national monuments to make the case for his re-election, may be a sign that the reactors are
ensnared in a broader feud over energy spending.Grant
recipients would develop reactor designs with an eye toward eventually
turning those into pilot projects -- and the loan guarantees that these first-of-a-kind nuclear plants are using today to
get financing would be blocked under the "No More Solyndras" bill that
passed the House last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14). Congress has given
the grant program $67 million for fiscal 2012, shy of the amount that
would be needed annually to reach full funding. If the "sequester" kicks in at year's end and slashes
DOE funding or the balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could dwindle yet again. Even the
staunchest supporters of the federal nuclear program are
acknowledging it is a tough time to promise a $452 million check. Former
decision right," she wrote in an email.

Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors as chairman of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees
won't cost too much because they get repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a "tiny little tax" on the nuclear industry, he said.

when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support
getting these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the
solution may not be so clear. While some Republicans remain staunch
supporters of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others
who label the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars.
"It's awful hard, with the needs that are out there and the debt that haunts
us, to figure out how you're going to establish priorities ," said Domenici, who has advocated for
But

the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know how to do that."

Link Offshore Nuclear

Offshore nuclear causes controversy public and
environmental concerns after Fukushima
Matt Novak is the author of the Paleofuture blog, which can now be found
on Gizmodo. 2-26-2013 The American Plan to Build Nuclear Power Plants in
the Ocean http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-american-plan-tobuild-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean-27801262/?no-ist DA: 6/8/14
A new nuclear power plant hasnt been built in the U.S. in over 30
years

. But in the 1970s nuclear power was still in many ways a low-emissions dream of the future. In 1975, nuclear power accounted for about 4 percent of the electrical energy generated in the United

States. But some people at that time were predicting that by the dawn of the 21st century, nuclear power might supply over 50 percent of electrical energy needed in this country. (Nuclear power currently produces

plans were set into motion which would have seen

offshore nuclear power plants

19.2 percent of electricity in the U.S.) In the early 1970s,

eight to ten

built by 1999. Each power plant was envisioned to produce 1,150 megawatts of electricity, enough for a city

of about 600,000 at the time. The plan was devised by Offshore Power Systems (OPS), a partnership between Tenneco and Westinghouse. In 1972, a New Jersey utility company contracted with OPS to build an
offshore nuclear power plant in Jacksonville, Florida, and tow it to New Jersey. The $1.1 billion contract to build the plant was even signed at sea aboard a yacht just off the New Jersey coast. The power plants
would have been gigantic barges anchored a few miles off the American coastline, starting with Brigantine, New Jersey. Why build a power plant at sea? Nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of water
for cooling and moving nuclear power plants offshore provides easy access to water without raising the ire of potential protesters on land. Gordon P. Selfridges 1975 paper Floating Nuclear Power Plants: A Fleet on
the Horizon? notes the concern over access to water: Since nuclear power plants have a tremendous impact on the surrounding community, problems and confrontations on land have contributed to the impending
move offshore. Physically, the plants consume enormous amounts of water for cooling and steam production and emit low-level radiation. With reference to the once-through cooling water necessary for the
plants operation, one study has projected that the demand for such coolant will encompass over fifty percent of the entire runoff from the continental United States in only twenty-five years unless the plants are
moved offshore. The possible ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power plants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone. News reports from
the time indicated that officials expressed a desire to have less of an impact on the environment, which is a more pleasant way to say that its probably not good to have half of the nations water running through
nuclear power plants. Officials were concerned that states friendly to nuclear power (like New Jersey) were running out of vital riverfront property on which to build plants at least without angering environmental
groups. From the September 19, 1972, News Journal in Mansfield, Ohio: The stated reason for building the offshore power plant was to minimize its impact on the environment, but officials privately admitted that
the move to the sea was motivated by the fact that New Jersey may be the first state in the United State to run out of riverfront property for power plants. This is the only reason for putting this plant in the ocean,

But the project met

with delay after delay, most stymied by growing public concern over
the environmental impact and risk of accidents
said Edward C. Raney, a Cornell University biologist and a public service consultant. Its the only way to justify the expense of locating at sea.

with nuclear power plants. In 1976, then-candidate for President

Jimmy Carter called for a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the United States. Public opinion was already turning against nuclear power in the mid-1970s but the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania
on March 28, 1979, permanently altered the way that Americans perceived nuclear power. In 1982, a federal nuclear licensing board gave temporary approval for the OPS program to go through in New Jersey. But
by then OPS was barely hobbling along. In 1975, Tenneco had withdrawn from the project leaving just Westinghouse at the helm. And by the early 1980s all of the utility companies with which OPS signed contract
had long since cancelled their orders on account of the delays. Over the next decade OPS began liquidating everything and laying off most of their staff of 1,500 in Jacksonville. In 1990 Westinghouse sold what was

environmentalists
with the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima
is again concerned about the very real potential for accidents
especially when it comes to
the ocean
then the worlds largest crane 38 stories tall, and built for $15 million to a Chinese shipbuilding company for a measly $3 million. Today,
shunned nuclear power are giving it a second look. But

who once

on March 11, 2011, the world

shared resources like

Offshore nuclear uniquely links bureaucracy and political

backlash
Thomas Wellock, NRC Historian, 9-26-2013 Waves of Uncertainty: The
Demise of the Floating Reactor Concept (Part II), http://public-blog.nrcgateway.gov/2013/09/26/waves-of-uncertainty-the-demise-of-the-floatingreactor-concept-part-ii/ DA: 6/12/14
putting land-based reactors out to sea was
bound to raise new safety, environmental and regulatory questions. Concerns about ship
collisions, off-shore fishing grounds, barge sinking and the challenge of creating a new
regulatory process for floating reactors were just some of the unique issues facing
Offshore Power Systems, apparently, did not appreciate that

regulators. Even the trade press raised concerns. Nuclear News worried about the incredibly tangled mass of overlapping jurisdictions, state, national, and international
law, inter-agency authority that included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events conspired
to worsen OPSs prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG
postponed delivery of the first floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise
threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida Congressional delegation asked the federal government to purchase four plants. But, the prospect of bailing out OPS did not

Floating reactors did not solve

regulatory or political problems. The production facility in Jacksonville needed an NRC manufacturing license. There
were so many technical and regulatory uncertainties that the licensing review ran three years behind schedule. A 1978 report from
appeal to officials in the Ford Administration. The purchase proposal died.

the U.S. General Accounting Office criticized the NRC for what it believed was an incomplete safety review, particularly for not accounting for impacts on the ocean

opposition to the
plant was intense. Nearby counties voted in non-binding referendums 2 to 1 against the Atlantic Generating Station, and the New Jersey
ecosystem during an accident where a melting reactor core broke through the bottom of the barge. Local and state

legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over to PSEG. Westinghouse held out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didnt. In late 1978, the utility
announced it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was the only reason for the cancellations. We simply will not need these units
in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted. Others blamed excessive regulation. In March 1979, John OLeary, a Department of Energy deputy secretary, provided

It has
become impossible to build energy plants in America OLeary said, due to
excessive environmental regulations and an indecisive bureaucracy. Environmental laws, OLeary complained, had
to the White House a grimeven alarming report, as one staffer said, that the NRC delays with the OPS license were symptomatic of a larger problem.

created a chain of hurdles which effectively kill energy projects and

damage to the nations economy. He wanted presidential action. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events rendered OLearys plea for

The accident
raised anew questions about a core melt accident and further delayed the manufacturing license.
action moot. Two and a half weeks later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, ending any hope of an imminent industry rebound.

The NRC did not issue a license until 1982. In 1984, Westinghouse formally abandoned the OPS enterprise, dismantled the Jacksonville facility, and sold its huge crane to

Going to sea, OPS discovered, did not allow it to escape the problems that beset
nuclear power. A novel technological solution could not overcome
public distrust and economic, technical and regulatory uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.
China.

Despite congressional support for nuclear plan requires

massive PC to overcome GOP opposition to cooperation
and dem opposition to nuclear
Trembath, 11
Alex, Policy Fellow @ Americans For Energy Leadership, 2/4,
http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/the-nuclear-option-in-a-postpartisan-approach-on-energy/
The extreme reluctance of Republicans to cooperate with Democrats
over the last two years is only the first step, as any legislation will
have to overcome Democrats traditional opposition to nuclear
energy. However, here again there is reason for optimism. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry bucked their
partys long-time aversion to nuclear in a precursor bill to APA, and Kerry continued working on the issue
during 2010. Jeff Bingaman, in a speech earlier this week, reversed his position on the issue by calling for
the inclusion of nuclear energy provisions in a clean energy standard. The Huffington Post reports that the
White House reached out to his committee [Senate Energy] to help develop the clean energy plan through
legislation. This development in itself potentially mitigates two of the largest obstacle standing in the way
of progress on comprehensive energy legislation: lack of a bill, and lack of high profile sponsors.
Democrats can also direct Section 48C of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 towards
nuclear technology, which provides a tax credit for companies that engage in clean tech manufacturing.
Democrats should not give up on their policy goals simply because they no longer enjoy broad majorities in
both Houses, and Republicans should not spend all their time holding symbolic repeal votes on the Obama
Administrations accomplishments. The lame-duck votes in December on Dont Ask, Dont Tell, the tax
cut deal and START indicate that at least a few Republicans are willing to work together with Democrats in

nuclear energy needs moving forward. It will

require an agressive push from the White House, and a concerted
effort from both parties leadership, but the road for forging bipartisan
legislation is not an impassable one. The politician with perhaps the single
greatest leverage over the future of nuclear energy is President Obama,
and his rhetoric matches the challenge posed by our aging and poisonous energy infrastructure. This
is our generations Sputnik moment, announced Obama recently. Echoing the calls of
a divided Congress, and that is precisely what

presidents past, the President used his State of the Union podium to signal a newly invigorated
industrialism in the United States. He advocated broadly for renewed investment in infrastructure,
education, and technological innovation. And he did so in a room with many more members of the
opposition party than at any point during the first half of his term. The eagerness of the President to
combine left and right agendas can hopefully match the hyper-partisan bitterness that dominates our

nuclear power maybe one sector of our economy to benefit

from his political leadership.
political culture, and

Even popular next gen nuclear incentives drain capital

now get drawn into broader energy spending fight
Nelson, 9/14/12
Gabriel Nelson and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters, Greenwire, 9/24/12
DOE funding for small reactors languishes as parties
clash on debt It's not just wind and solar projects that are waiting for federal help as
NUCLEAR ENERGY:

Congress duels over the importance of putting taxpayer dollars on

the line for cutting-edge energy projects. Some of the nation's largest
nuclear power companies are anxious to hear whether they will get a
share of a $452 million pot from the Department of Energy for a new breed of reactors that the
industry has labeled as a way to lessen the safety risks and construction costs of new nuclear power
plants. The grant program for these "small modular reactors," which was announced in January, would
mark the official start of a major U.S. foray into the technology even as rising construction costs -especially when compared to natural-gas-burning plants -- cause many power companies to shy away from
nuclear plants. DOE received four bids before the May 21 deadline from veteran reactor designers
Westinghouse Electric Co. and Babcock & Wilcox Co., as well as relative newcomers Holtec International
Inc. and NuScale Power LLC. Now the summer has ended with no announcement from DOE, even though
the agency said it would name the winners two months ago. As the self-imposed deadline passed,

decision could come in September, or perhaps at

the end of the year. To observers within the industry, it seems that election-year calculations
companies started hearing murmurs that a

may have sidelined the contest. "The rumors are a'flying," said Paul Genoa, director of policy development
at the Nuclear Energy Institute, in an interview last week. "All we can imagine is that

this is now

caught up in politics, and the campaign has to decide whether these things are good for them

to announce, and how." Small modular reactors do not seem to be lacking in political support. The nuclear
lobby has historically courted both Democrats and Republicans and still sees itself as being in a strong
position with key appropriators on both sides of the aisle. Likewise, top energy officials in the Obama
administration have hailed the promise of the new reactors, and they haven't shown any signs of a change
of heart. DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said last week that the department is still reviewing
applications, but she did not say when a decision will be made. "This is an important multiyear research
and development effort, and we want to make sure we take the time during the review process to get the
decision right," she wrote in an email. That the grants haven't been given out during
a taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to

may be a sign that the

reactors are ensnared in a broader feud over energy spending. Grant
recipients would develop reactor designs with an eye toward eventually turning those into pilot
projects -- and the loan guarantees that these first-of-a-kind nuclear
plants are using today to get financing would be blocked under the "No
More Solyndras" bill that passed the House last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14).
creating new national monuments to make the case for his re-election,

Congress has given the grant program $67 million for fiscal 2012, shy of the amount that would be needed
annually to reach full funding. If the "sequester" kicks in at year's end and slashes DOE funding or the
balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could dwindle yet again.

Even

the staunchest supporters of the federal nuclear program are

acknowledging it is a tough time to promise a $452 million check. Former Sen.
Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors as chairman of both the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said
during a brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees won't cost too much because they get
repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a "tiny little tax" on the nuclear industry, he said. But

when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support getting
these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the solution may
not be so clear. While some Republicans remain staunch supporters
of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others who label
the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars. "It's awful
hard, with the needs that are out there and the debt that haunts us,
to figure out how you're going to establish priorities," said Domenici,
who has advocated for the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a
fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know
how to do that."

Energy

Link Energy General

Energy issues cost capital triggers massive fights over
competing goals, role of government, spending, picking
winners and supply vs demand approaches
John Banks, nonresident fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings
Institution's Energy Security Initiative; and adjunct professor for electricity
markets at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 8-142012 Common Ground in Energy Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/08/14-energy-politics-banks
DA: 6/5/14
A divisive energy policy debate is playing an increasingly prominent
role in the presidential election campaign reflecting long-simmering
themes that emerged in the 1970s. The first theme is the challenge of
balancing three, often competing components of energy policy. There is a
national security goal reducing vulnerability to supply disruptions and price shocks linked to
our overwhelming use of oil in transportation and dependence on oil imports. There are

environmental goals

reducing pollution and adverse health effects of energy use, as well as

meeting the challenge of global climate change, namely reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
And finally there are broader economic goals embedded in energy policy keeping prices low
to bolster economic growth, creating jobs, promoting new industries or technologies, and raising revenue.

Balancing and prioritizing these goals is notoriously difficult. For

example, our abundant natural gas supplies are frequently touted as providing major economic benefits,
but there are also environmental concerns. Moreover, goals change over time; in the 1970s we instituted
policies to shift oil out of electricity generation and promoted coal use for national security and economic

The
second major theme is the roiling debate over the role of
government. While not limited to the energy sector, there are nearly constant
heated discussions over fundamental questions: What is the right
way if any for the government to influence or participate in the
market? What is the right mix of policy approaches, i.e., market-based vs.
command and control? In the last several years we have heard much criticism about
the dangers (market distortions, waste of taxpayers money) of
government picking winners in fuels, technologies, or sectors. And there is growing
reasons, while now we are looking for ways to reduce coal use for environmental reasons.

support for government to promote a portfolio approach; that our challenges are so complex that as
one utility CEO phrased it we need silver buckshot not a silver bullet. In todays policy discourse this

The third theme is the tension over

supply-side and demand-side policy approaches. After the 1970s, there was an
increased focus on alternatives to fossil fuels, and on the demand side (efficiency and conservation). To
this day we see a tug-of-war over how to prioritize and balance
different supply-side solutions, as well as how to balance supply
options vs. demand side options.
is called an all of the above approach.

Plan Drains PC regardless of bipartisan support multiple

reasons
Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO, American Geophysical
Union, National Journal Experts Blog, 8-15- 2012,

http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php?
comments=expandall#comments

gridlock we are
reality is that there are a number of critical obstacles keeping
us from passing energy and environmental legislation. We know that objective
As convenient as it would be to say that a single change could alleviate the
experiencing, the

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

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
healthy and thriving economy. The

small initiatives that require only nominal investments can't begin to address the environmental 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 challenges we face; and

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

Dissonance about the role of federal regulation, its cost-effectiveness,

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.
seniors.

and potential to impose costs on private sector that might adversely impact economic recovery

Link Energy Poison Pill Additions

No turns even non-controversial energy legislation
requires PC to overcome poison pill riders
Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter, 2-1-2012, Senate Tuesday group has
bipartisan energy legislation in its sights
http://www.eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2012/02/01/1 DA: 6/5/14

Kerry conceded that it would be difficult to pass almost anything in an election year, "but we're
going to do stuff that's not controversial." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who with
Kerry introduced comprehensive climate change legislation in the last Congress, said supporters of action
on global warming remain disappointed that it failed. "But if we get some energy independence,
alternative energy, energy efficiency legislation adopted, I think we will thereby also diminish carbon
pollution, which I think it's all about," he said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked with Kerry and
Lieberman on the climate bill but was not ultimately a co-sponsor, said that he saw opportunities for
bipartisan collaboration, especially on efficiency measures. "I think there's a market now for energy
efficiency and a market for domestic energy production," he said. In particular, Graham singled out his
Home Star bill, which would have provided incentives for residential efficiency retrofits that he sponsored
last Congress with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "I think there would be bipartisan support for that," Graham
added. But it is unclear whether Home Star would be a candidate for any proposed package this year. The
Warner-Graham bill has not been reintroduced, and while a version passed the House in 2010, when the

The
bills the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has approved this Congress with
bipartisan support include an industrial energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen
(D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a measure to establish a new carbon capture and
sequestration program at the Energy Department and bills to promote solar energy and
Democrats were in the majority, the Senate version was never approved by the Finance Committee.

geothermal. Aside from the goal of producing legislation, the Tuesday group also provides an opportunity
for its members to talk about climate and energy issues. Energy Secretary Steven Chu addressed the
senators in November. Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund said that any of the

bills approved by the energy committee would have a good chance

of making it to the floor of the Senate. But while Kerry and his colleagues may
succeed in crafting a bill that would garner broad bipartisan support,
Senate Republicans might move to attach amendments to it that
would roll back U.S. EPA pollution restrictions, approve the Keystone XL
pipeline or open new areas along the West Coast or in Alaska to petroleum
production, Weiss said. Similar attempts are likely in the Republicancontrolled House. "The challenge would be to keep poison-pill
amendments off of the bill without getting it pulled ," he said.

LinkRenewable Energy
Plan spurs a huge fight
Karoun Demirjian, "Will Republicans Plan ball on Obama's Lofty SecondTerm Agenda," LAS VEGAS SUN, 11--11--12,
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/11/will-republicans-play-ballobamas-lofty-second-ter/
But the phrase cap-and-trade makes conservatives see almost as much red as the name Nancy

large swaths of the country including some longtime

Democrats are beginning to doubt that theres any real payoff
to renewable energy investments.Its a lot of hocus-pocus, said Nick Taylor, 42,
Pelosi. Plus,

a lifelong Las Vegas Democrat and single father of seven who voted for Romney. He used to have a
job constructing solar panels with Bombard Electric. We all made a lot of money doing it, but now
the systems dont work. ... Those are garbage now. Th ats

left many lawmakers

thinking the status quo may be better than the
compromise.Energy that just divides the parties so much,and its
something that the public isnt really sold on, Damore said, explaining that despite the
arched rhetoric on both sides, the feeling of urgency is still too weak to push
the parties to work something out. Clean energy was sold as job creation, and
now that doesnt seem to have happened .. and it's not like the oil and gas industry is going
anywhere.

Plan drains capital--opens up contentious debates

MORGAN STANLEY, "Post-2012 Election Look at Lame-Duck Session and
2013," 11--7--12,
http://www.morganstanleyfa.com/public/projectfiles/697ac6e3-64d3-4f8ea026-2c81e2149e95.pdf
Congress and the
could move forward on policy that seeks expanded
domestic energy production focused on all energy related resources, from
With an all of the above strategy for achieving energy independence,
administration

conventional sources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, to renewable sources focused

achieving
consensus will remain difficult. Wide ideological differences still exist,
especially regarding theefficacy 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 energy-related legislative effort .
on wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects. At the same time,

Plan ensures partisan battles

Leone 12 (Steve, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, Part 2:
Political Reality and the Way Forward for Renewable Energy, April 12,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/04/part-2political-reality-and-the-way-forward-for-renewable-energy)

Political heavyweights know this about their rough-and-tumble

you never
give your opponent an opening. In Washington, its hard enough to
craft legislation even in relatively amicable times. In the tense atmosphere on
the Hill today, meaningful legislation takes a ringside seat, and the game
New Hampshire, U.S.A. --

game you project victory long before the results are in. And when you think you've won,

becomes theater. Thats where we are now. In one corner is the House budget,
essentially the Republican Partys line in the sand thats been drawn
over the size of the federal government. A key component of this is the federal
governments more limited role in supporting a clean energy future. In the other corner is the
White House and the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has vowed to
stonewall any legislation that it says caters to the super-wealthy and the entrenched fossil fuels industry.
Like two tired boxers in the ring, theyre content to leave it in the hands of the judges in this case the
voters, who will in many ways determine the force with which our federal government pursues a national
policy built on clean energy. But the real prospects for any meaningful legislation is likely to come after the

most industry
observers dont expect much chance of any real federal renewable
energy legislation passing through a divided Congress . That means no Clean
election, when the rhetoric cools and when political capital comes due. Until then,

Energy Standard, no revival of the 1603 Treasury grant program, no extension of the Production Tax Credit

There are just too few vehicles that can be

used to pass any of the measures, and too little trust between key
negotiators to find common ground. One of the last best hopes the transportation bill
until the end of the year at the earliest.

included an amendment that addressed some of these concerns. Ultimately, the amendment went
nowhere, and the renewable industry was left looking months down the road to when something could get
resolved.

Even smart renewable energy legislation is massively

controversial
McEntee 8/15 Christine is the Executive Director and CEO at the
American Geophysical Union. Science, Politics and Public Opinion, 2012,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.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

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 costeffectiveness, 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. Lastly, we know that
Congress is not likely to make much real progress on either energy
or environmental issues until voters demand such action. Research shows that
most voters, including Independents in swing states, do not list
energy and environmental issues as a major determinant of how
they vote, despite their significant impact on local, state and national economies, public health and national security. This needs to change.
know that

Link Energy Reduce Restrictions

Reducing energy restrictions requires PC partisan
gridlock, no support for Obama
Michael Whatley is the executive vice president of Consumer Energy
Alliance in Washington D.C, 10-30-2012, Energy in the Next Four (Political)
Years http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=121729 DA:
6/5/14
Should Republicans hold the House, and Democrats hold the Senate, it
will make it exceedingly difficult for any meaningful energy
legislation to pass in the next two years, regardless of who wins the Presidency. Smaller
legislative measures, including requisite funding for federal agencies, are likely, but a bipartisan movement to pass a

partisan gridlock in
Congress would require the President to push his energy agenda
comprehensive energy package is unlikely. For the Obama administration,

through regulation. Potential items of his docket include efforts to expand federal regulation over hydraulic fracturing and
to create new incentives or mandates for alternative fuel consumption, such as a low carbon fuel standard. For a Romney

any substantive changes to our current regulatory

structure, especially as it relates to public lands, would require Congressional
approval, something that a bitterly divided Congress will be loath to
provide. Similarly, incentives for renewable energy programs and tax credits would be up to the discretion of the
administration,

Congress and its budgeting process. However, a Romney administration would likely expand leasing opportunities in the
federal offshore and public lands for oil and natural gas development.

Multiple factors ensure plan spurs gridlock regardless of

bipart support
Stephen Barlas, columnist @ Financial Executive, 1-1-2012 Does the US
Really Need an Energy Policy?
http://mydigimag.rrd.com/article/Energy/927593/94198/article.html DA:
6/5/14

it is highly unlikely that Obama's blueprint will lead to a firmer

footing for U.S. energy security than past so-called blueprints from other presidents, or perhaps more importantly, whether a
But

print is even necessary. Obama's policy is a loosely knit set of policies that focus on producing more oil at home and reducing dependence on foreign oil by developing
cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. The Obama plan is not the result of any particular deep thinking or strategy. The President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) called for the development of such a strategy in its November 2010 Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Changein Energy
Technologies. Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. PCAST called for a Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) as the first step in preparing a Quadrennial Energy
Review. DOE completed the QTR in November 2011, six months after Obama published his blueprint. Steven E. Koonin, former undersecretary of Energy for Science, says
QTR is limited in scope and all DOE felt it could get done given budget and time. "Technology development absent an understanding and shaping of policy and market
context in which it gets deployed is not aproductive exercise," he says. At this point there is no indication that DOE will even undertake the much more important QER,

The larger reality is that any energy independence plan

proposed by any U.S, president--whether based on a QER or not--has as much a chance
of coming to fruition as Washington's football Redskins have of
getting into the Super Bowl. But regardless of the rhetoric of president after president, maybe the U.S. doesn't even need an
much less complete it any time soon.

energy independence or energy security policy. Natural Gas Making Inroads The biggest energy input for industrial and commercial business users is natural gas.
Natural gas prices are incredibly important, bothbecause the fuel is used directly to run industrial processes, heat facilities and commercial buildings and make products
such as fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and other advanced materials. Thanks to the shale revolution, EIA forecasts natural gas prices will stay low for the foreseeable
future, rising to $4.66 m/BTU in 2015 and $5.05 m/BTU in 2020. That is good news for the owners of 15,000 to 17,000 industrial boilers in this country, most of which use
natural gas (and many of those who still use coal are switching to natural gas). In addition, companies such as Dow Chemical Co. are restarting operations at facilities idled
during the recession, Bayer AG is in talks with companies interested in building new ethane crackers at its two industrial parks in West Virginia and Chevron Phillips
Chemical Co. and LyondellBasellCo., are considering expanding operations in the United States. Fracking has also had a much less remarked-upon effect on petroleum
prices, which are important to businesses with transportation fleets. New oil sources are spurting from the Bakken (stretching from Canada to North Dakota and Montana)
and Eagles Ford (South Texas) shale plays. U.S. oil prices have fallen from $133.88 a barrel of Texas intermediate crude in June 2008 to around $86.07. EIA predicts oil
prices will rise to $94.58/bbl in 2015 and $108.10/bbl in 2020. Beyond the flood of natural gas washing over them, U.S. companies are also benefitting from three
decades of investments--most of whichwere made without federal subsidies, or support--into facility energy efficiency. Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the Energy Program
at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the Electricity Advisory Board at DOE, says the most important single solution for U.S. businesses worried about
energy prices and access is aggressive energy efficiency. "Energy independence is the wrong issue," Cavanagh says. "It is reducing the cost of energy services and
improving energy security. "U.S. business has done a tremendous job in energy efficiency overthe past three decades," he adds. "It takes less than one-half of a unit of
energy to create $1 of economic value than it did in 1973. Industry has done that by upgrading the efficiency of process equipmentand upgrading lighting." Others may
well argue that the U.S. needs, and has always needed, an energy policy, but one narrowly targeted. Kenneth B Medlock III, deputy director, Energy Forum at the James A
Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, notes that DOE and the Gas Research Institute helped develop, with federal funding, the horizontal drilling (i.e.
fracking) technology that Mitchell Energy and Development Corp. (now a part of Devon Energy Corp.) pioneered. "Government ought to be focused on research and
development," Med-lock notes. He also is a supporter of loan guarantees to promote investment activity in frontier technologies, and argues that as long as there are more

spectacular failures of
energy companies such as Solyndra Corp., the Chapter 11 filing of Beacon Power Corp. and
good bets than bad bets in that kind of portfolio, thefunds committed in total are a good investment. But

other less publicized busts reduce, if not kill, the prospect of any additional
congressional funding for energy loan guarantees of any kind. That is true even when
legislation has bipartisan support, which is the case for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011
(S. 1000), which would, among other things, provide grants for a revolving loan program designed to develop energy-saving technologies for industrial and commercial
use. The bill passed the Senate Energy Committee by a vote of 18-3 in July. However, the Congressional Budget Office has pegged the cost of the bill's provisions at $1.2
billion over five years. That is a serious barrier to passage. And in any case, even if it did pass, the bill would simply authorize funding. Congressional appropriations
committees would have to approve the money as part of DOE's budget, which would be highly unlikely, Solyndra aside, since similar programs authorized by the 2005 and

Besides impact on the federal deficit, politics, too,

often impede progress on otherwise sensible policies. Politics apparently
have clogged up the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline extension from Canada.Environmentalists, a Democratic constituency, oppose the project,
2007 energy bills are still begging for appropriations.

arguing it would create more greenhouse gas emissions than necessary and pose a potential drinking water danger for Nebraska residents because it passed over the
Ogallala Aquifer. That view is shared by Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, whose views are opposite those of all the can presidential candidates, each of whom
supported U.S. approval of Keystone XL. Labor unions, another key Democratic constituency, support the project that TransCanada, the project sponsor, says will bring

debate features
Democrats versus Democrats and Republicans versus Republicans,
efforts to substitute domestic natural gas for foreign petroleum features business versus
business.
more than11 8,000 person-years of employment to workers in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. If the Keystone

Turn Shield Energy Uniquely Polarized

No turns
A. All energy policy drains capital
Christine Todd Whitman, CASEnergy Co-Chair, Former EPA Administrator
and New Jersey Governor, National Journal Experts Blog, 8-13- 2012,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php?
comments=expandall#comments
Its clear from the debate around the merits and drawbacks of
various electricity and fuel sources that energy policy can be a
highly polarizing topic. In fact, its arguable that there is no energy option that
holds a truly bipartisan appeal: Every form of energy faces pockets
of dissent. This makes crafting universally accepted energy policy
particularly challenging.

B. Drawn into broader partisanship and energy debate

regardless of congressional support
Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott, Former Senators, The Hill, 1-24-2012,
http://thehill.com/special-reports/state-of-the-union-january-2012/205973dont-delay-action-on-energy-issues

Congress returns and the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address, many Americans,
frustrated about the seemingly endless
string of partisan battles over energy policies and projects.
Whether its Keystone and oil pipelines, Solyndra and loan guarantees, light bulb standards
and energy efficiency, responsible development of new shale natural gas or the future of nuclear
power, partisans on both sides are portraying these issues as all or
nothing. We know from experience that more agreement and desire for compromise exists than it now appears, if
As

including members of Congress from both parties, are

only Congress and the administration will look for it. Indeed, we hope President Obama begins that process in his speech
tonight. For example, little noticed in the presidents remarks on the Keystone XL oil pipeline last week was a suggestion
that he stands ready to work with industry to expedite that part of the pipeline that would run from the major oil supply
center at Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast refineries. The administration should make good on this promise. Currently, oil
from U.S. sources like the Bakken fields in North Dakota cannot reach Gulf Coast refineries easily. Expediting construction
of a pipeline that flows south from Cushing would reduce the glut of cheaper oil there, allowing refiners to be less reliant
on more expensive foreign oil and creating jobs, according to industry analysts. This could be important progress as the
larger Keystone issue gets resolved. And while Keystone has attracted the attention, a huge assortment of new
pipelines, gathering systems and storage projects are on the horizon; where appropriate, their construction can be
expedited, as well. Important advances are possible this year on other energy issues. For example, the United States is
one step closer to building the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
likely to soon approve a license for construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in Georgia; the AP1000 reactor
features advanced passive systems that provide a significant safety advantage. Critical to this project are loan
guarantees, also pending, established with bipartisan support under the 2005 energy bill. With issuance of the NRC
license, the Department of Energy can finalize a loan guarantee to the plants owner to mitigate financing costs over the

In Congress, legislation with bipartisan support is

languishing in the midst of broader partisanship . A bill by Sens. Rob Portman (R5- to 6-year construction.

Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), approved by a 18-3 vote in the Senate Energy Committee, could greatly improve U.S.
energy efficiency, reducing costs for consumer and businesses and making American industry more competitive.

Even popular energy legislation gets drawn into broader

partisan energy debate ensures gridlock
Amy Harder, energy and environment reporter, National Journal, 8-132012, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spotbiparti.php

Which energy and environment policies garner bipartisan support?

And what's holding Washington back from acting on them?
Numerous bills pending before Congress have widespread support
from Democrats and Republicans in both chambers, including bills on energy
efficiency, natural gas-powered vehicles, and toxic-chemicals reform. Yet even popular measures
like these remain stalled. What other measures have attracted broad, bipartisan support? What's
holding back all these measures? Is there any common thread? What can Washington do
to make progress on these issues while it remains gridlocked over more divisive issues,
such as climate change and offshore oil and gas drilling?

Energy uniquely politicized causes gridlock

Brigham McCown Principal and Managing Director of United Transportation
Advisors LLC, National Journal Experts Blog, 8-13- 2012,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php?
comments=expandall#comments
Energy is one of the most politicized issues facing the country today.
While much of the nation is waiting and relying on the federal government
to weigh in on matters ranging from nuclear power to tax credits,
Washington policymakers seem unable to garner a general
consensus and move forward with these looming policy issues.
Confronted with the increasing turmoil in overseas monetary markets and uprisings in volatile Middle East regions, now is
the time for politicians and special interest groups alike to set aside their differences and seek common ground.

Mexico Hydrocarbon Treaty

Hydrocarbon Treaty costs capital environmentalists and
partisan disputes
David J. Unger is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor, covering
energy for the Monitor's Energy Voices. He attended Oberlin College for
undergraduate studies, and received his masters of science in journalism
from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism 10-1- 2013
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/1001/Congresscould-undercut-US-Mexico-joint-drilling-deal-in-Gulf DA: 6/5/14
US and Mexican efforts to jointly develop offshore oil and gas fields
along their maritime border in the Gulf of Mexico are being held up by a dispute
in Congress. For Mexico, those efforts represent an opportunity to acquire the technology and investment it needs to develop
hard-to-reach regions. Encapsulated in a 2012 agreement signed by both nations and ratified by Mexico, the push comes as Mexican President
Enrique Pea Nieto pushes for reforms that would open up the country's state-owned oil company to foreign investment. For the US, the
agreement not yet ratified by Congress promises an economic boost. It bolsters a growing North American energy largesse that stretches
from Canada's oil sands through shale plays in the US and down to deepwater reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. There's just one holdup.

Congress hasn't ratified the pact the US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement
because the House and Senate disagree on whether oil and gas
producers should be required to publicly disclose their payments to
foreign governments. On Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a meeting to try to move

forward on the agreement. "It is the hope that, through this Agreement and the proposed energy reforms in Mexico, that the energy revolution
the U.S. is currently experiencing can extend throughout the Western Hemisphere," Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon said in a statement
prepared for the Senate committee hearing. "This would make our region more competitive and less reliant on politically tumultuous states for
obtaining energy." For decades, the two countries have negotiated over how to divvy up resources along the US-Mexico maritime border and in
areas between the two economic zones. In 2000, a moratorium was placed on drilling in the region to allow time to develop a coordinated
plan. As the decade wore on, exploration on the US side moved farther and farther offshore, toward the maritime border. Concern grew in
Mexico that rigs on the US side could start siphoning oil from the Mexico side the "efecto popote," or, "straw effect." Meanwhile, energy
companies felt hindered by the legal uncertainties of tapping reservoirs that straddle the border. "The motive for the US is 'Were ready to drill,
but we don't want to drill ourselves into a legal nightmare,'" said George Baker, publisher of Mexico Energy Intelligence, an industry newsletter
based in Houston. "For Mexico, its 'We want to make certain our oil rights are protected so that if they start drilling on the US side and
discover crossborder oil we have architecture in place to protects our interests." The 2012 hydrocarbons agreement sought to alleviate those
issues. It lifts a moratorium on drilling in the region and provides a legal framework for jointly developing the projected 172 million barrels of
oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas in the region. Mexico almost immediately ratified the Transboundary Hydrocarbons

Agreement, but it has languished in Congress because the House-passed

version exempts oil and gas companies from publicly disclosing their
payments to foreign governments. The 2010 BP oil spill has also cast a
shadow on the agreement, which would facilitate an expansion of "deepwater
drilling" in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental groups say the industry hasn't
learned its lessons from the explosion that killed 11 people and spilled as much as 4.2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico.

Decimates PC sparks backlash over the process of

ratification and requires Presidential involvement
Phil Taylor E&E Reporter, 1-9-2013, E&E: U.S.-Mexico transboundary
agreement mired in Congress, http://www.bromwichgroup.com/2013/01/eeoffshore-drilling-u-s-mexico-transboundary-agreement-mired-in-congress/ DA:
6/5/14
the Senate objected to the agreements passage, but sources say it was likely out of concern for
the process by which it was being passed rather than the substance of the agreement. That may stem in part
from lingering uncertainty over whether the agreement is a treaty, which would require a twoIt is unclear who in

thirds majority for Senate ratification, or an executive agreement, which would require implementing legislation to be passed by a majority in
both chambers. Regardless, its failure was a surprise to staff on the ENR Committee who had crafted a news release in preparation for its
passage but had to delete it after the agreement was blocked. According to the report by Foreign Relations Republicans, the Obama
administration has yet to say whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement but appears to prefer the latter. Mexicos Senate

, a formal communication
would need to be sent from the president to the Foreign Relations Committee, which
ratified the agreement, suggesting it was interpreted as a treaty. If it is a treaty

would trigger hearings on the matter and allow Congress to interpret any ambiguous language in the agreement.
That is important, because several provisions in the treaty invite scrutiny and
clarification, according to the committee report. The treaty doesnt have every detail
worked out, said Neil Brown, a former adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) who was ranking member of the committee until his
retirement earlier this month. For example, one section of the agreement calls for common standards, but it is unclear whether that
requires companies to adopt U.S. safety and environmental standards or Mexicos, which are considered less developed. Another area of the
agreement creates a dispute resolution process without saying whether the arbitration is binding, the report said. The agreement would

the Foreign
Committee said they were miffed that the administration did not
consult with them before pushing the agreement through in the lame duck.
allow joint inspections by Interiors BSEE and the Mexican government to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Some on
Relations

Nat gas

Dems hate it
Democrats hate Natural gas- theyll do anything including
restrictions to stop it
Dailykos 5/27/14 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/27/1302337/-

PA-Gov-New-RMU-Poll-Shows-Tom-Corbett-R-Still-Unpopular-But-ReallyUnpopular-With-Seniors)(AC)
Forty-eight percent of seniors had an unfavorable opinion of Corbett in an
RMU survey in February, and exit polling in the 2010 election showed seniors
supported him 63 percent to 37 percent, Harold said. Harold said the issue
of taxing natural gas extraction and drilling, in general, could be
turning the table. The poll asked respondents why they had the impression
they did. About 29 percent of those with a negative impression of the
governor cited education. The second most-mentioned issue was taxing
natural gas at 13 percent, up from 7 percent in February. The issue of
natural gas drilling has gotten more public awareness with the
Democratic gubernatorial primary race. So one theory could be that
Democratic seniors gained more familiarity with this issue in recent months
and, as a result, their opinion of the governor worsened correspondingly,
Harold said. Seniors are a demographic that would stand to benefit from an
extraction tax ... without paying any of the costs, if the costs include harm to
job creation as Republicans claim. Harold said seniors support natural
gas extraction, or severance, taxes by 74 to 18 percent. Voters
younger than 50 do by 51 to 30 percent. Corbett opposes any new taxes on
drilling. Wolf has argued for an extraction tax

Dems hate the plan lack of environmental review and

linked to fracking
Colman 9/26/12 (Zack, staffwriter, Dems push DOE for environmental analysis of natural gas
exports http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/258771-dems-push-doe-for-natural-gas-exportenvironmental-analysis-)

A group of 20 Democrats told the Energy Department on Wednesday that it

should complete environmental tests before approving liquefied natural gas
(LNG) export deals. In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the signatories
expressed concern about the amount of hydraulic fracturing, known as
fracking, needed to meet demand for natural gas exports . Led by
Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.) and Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), the lawmakers
called on DOE to conduct an environmental impact statement, as
outlined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), before approving
more export deals or LNG terminal permits. We are concerned that
exporting more LNG would lead to greater hydraulic fracturing, or fracking,
activity thus threatening the health of local residents and jobs, the letter said.
For instance, increased natural gas production in communities across the
nation could negatively impact farmers, residents and local property
values. Fracking is the process of injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals
into tight rock formations to unlock natural gas. It has been linked to groundwater
contamination and seismic activity.

Democrats will backlash pricing concern

Colman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-ofnatural-gas)

Democrats fear that selling more natural gas abroad would raise costs
at home, and they cite an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that found increased exports
would raise electricity bills by an average of 1 to 3 percent annually between 2015 and 2035. They
also say it could cause environmental and health hazards by ramping up
exploration through hydraulic fracturing, a process that injects a mixture of chemicals, water and sand into

Markey (Mass.), the top Democrat

on the House Natural Resources Committee, has been an outspoken
opponent of selling more liquefied natural gas to other countries. [Rep.
Markey] believes that if we export large quantities of natural gas that we
will also export jobs in manufacturing, and threaten our economic and national
tight rock formations to release natural gas. Rep. Edward

security advantages from this abundant, low-cost source of domestic energy, committee spokesman Eben
Burnham-Snyder told The Hill in a statement.

Everybody hates it
Politicians are split and the debate is contentious it will
drain capital
Rascoe 9/17/12 (Ayesha, Energy Dept delays release of LNG export report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-lng-report-idUSBRE88G1E120120917?
feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe
ed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29

manufacturers and some lawmakers have raised concerns that

exports could increase energy costs at home and undercut U.S.
industries. "For members of Congress seeking reelection, LNG
exports may be an issue with two wrong sides," ClearView Energy Partners said
in research note on Monday. Support for exports could leave politicians open to
accusations of raising natural gas prices, while opposition could lead
to charges of failing to support oil and gas jobs, the research note said.
But

Manufacturers lobby
Manufacturers hate the plan
Colman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-ofnatural-gas)

The EIA report concluded that the divide between low U.S. natural
gas prices and higher-priced international markets would likely
narrow in the coming years. It also said investment in LNG terminals would be costly. The
manufacturing sector, which consumes large amounts of electricity, could feel the
price pinch from exporting natural gas. The American Chemistry
Council told The Hill it plans to "monitor the policy and regulatory
landscape carefully" on LNG exports, stressed the importance of the
energy source to U.S. manufacturers and noted that it has not
asserted LNG exports will raise prices.

Transportation

Transportation

Link Transportation General

Transportation costs PC Obama pushes, GOP opposition
and election year politics
Yonah Freemark, Master of Science in Transportation from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture,

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with
Distinction 1-25-2012 On Infrastructure, Hopes for Progress This Year Look
Glum http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/25/on-infrastructurehopes-for-progress-this-year-look-glum/ DA: 6/11/14
The
contributions of the Obama Administration to the investment in improved
transportation alternatives have been significant, but it was clear from the Presidents State of the
Union address last night that 2012 will be a year of diminished expectations in the face
of a general election and a tough Congressional opposition. Mr. Obamas address,
whatever its merits from a populist perspective, nonetheless failed to propose dramatic reforms to encourage new
spending on transportation projects, in contrast to previous years. While the Administration has in some ways radically
President Obama barely mentions the need for improvements in the nations capital stock in his State of the Union.

reformed the way Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes
like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek
suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts a sort of war dividend
whose size is undefined to do some nation-building right here at home. If these suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment audience, they
were reflective of the reality of working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as

Obama pushed hard, we shouldnt forget, for

to be rebuffed by intransigence in the
GOP-led House of Representatives and only wavering support in the
Democratic Senate. For the first term at least, the Administrations transportation initiatives
appear to have been pushed aside. Even so, it remains to be seen how the Administration will approach the
increased roads funding have become practically impossible to pursue. Mr.
a huge, transformational transportation bill in early 2011, only

development of a transportation reauthorization program. Such legislation remains on the Congressional agenda after three years of delays
(the law expires on March 31st). There is so far no long-term solution to the continued inability of fuel tax revenues to cover the growing
national need for upgraded or expanded mobility infrastructure. But if it were to pass, a new multi-year transportation bill would be the most

The prospect of agreement

between the two parties on this issue, however, seems far-fetched. That is, if we are to assume
significant single piece of legislation passed by the Congress in 2012.

that the goal is to complete a new and improved spending bill, rather than simply further extensions of the existing legislation. The House
could consider this month a bill that would fund new highways and transit for several more years by expanding domestic production of heavily
carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a terrible plan that would produce few new revenues and encourage more ecological destruction. Members of the
Senate, meanwhile, have for months been claiming they were looking for the missing $12 or 13 billion to complete its new transportation
package but have so far come up with bupkis. The near-term thus likely consists of either continued extensions of the current law or a
bipartisan bargain that fails to do much more than replicate the existing law, perhaps with a few bureaucratic reforms.

Transportation links Obama PC required, strong GOP

opposition
Dana Rubenstein, Reporter for Capital New York, has written for

Bloomberg Businessweek, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the
New York Observer, and the Brooklyn Paper 3-27- 2012 When is Obama
going to have his Eisenhower moment?
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5524547/whenobama-going-have-his-eisenhower-moment DA: 6/11/14
the current president, theres more of a consensus. One point of agreement is that he has talked a
great game, but has been unable to do much to deliver. Another is that he might be able to do more if he gets
On the subject of

a second term, but that even then it would depend on whether the upcoming election produces a Congress that is, one way or another, less hostile to his agenda Even
Eisenhower didnt mention transportation as much as this guy, said Joshua Schank, a former transportation adviser to Hillary Clinton who is now president of the Eno

building
support for increased transportation spending is not the president's top priority, as he heads into a
general election with the economy just showing signs of recovery. Infrastructure fundingand what were once packaged as stimulus projects, generally have
taken a back seat to, say, the price of gas and, by extension, the conspicuously expanded drive for domestic energy resources. The lesson that
Center for Transportation. Its hard not to be frustrated that he hasnt acted on it more, he added At the moment, it can safely be said that

Obama and the administration seem to have taken from the times they have pushed hard for spending on big
transportation-infrastructure projects is that they're a tougher sell than expected, or at least
that voters don't necessarily see them as the economic generators they eventually become So, for example, the president insisted that the federal stimulus act include $8
billion for high-speed rail, but then absorbed a great deal of grief over ensuing allocations, which were criticized as politically motivated. And while spending on less costly
projects has been easier for the administration, politically, it has also been less rewarding. For instance, the stimulus included $1.5 billion in funding for so-called TIGER
grants, a small pot of money (it was later expanded to $2.6 billion) thats been sprinkled around the country. They hardly got noticed nationally, other than by
transportation advocates, who felt they were too small to make any meaningful change to the physical transportation system itself. (There was a total of $48 billion in
stimulus spending on projects around the country, but aside from the high-speed rail component and the TIGER grants, those funds are generally considered to have been
inserted at the initiative of Congressional leaders and were not part of a coordinated national transportation strategy.) The reforms that transportation boosters have in
mind are, generally speaking, more profound: an ongoing commitment to paying for large capital projects and maintenance of existing infrastructure; sustainable sources
of revenue to offset that cost; alterations to the system of incentives that drive commercial and residential growth, and to the metrics that measure the efficiency and cost
of moving people around their regions and across the country. The federal tax code subsidizes some really bad development, says Andrew Goldberg, managing director
of government relations at the American Institute of Architects, which has advocated tax-code reforms. A lot of the funding goes toward sprawl, toward building where
land is cheapest." I know this isnt sexy," said Schank, "but he could direct D.O.T. to start doing the research necessary to implement real performance measures and
accountability for transportation. In other words, the administration could lay out a precise vision for how it would like to see the money it controls spent, and support that
vision accordingly. The American Society of Engineers says theres a $3 trillion backlog in surface transportation spending. The United States spends a mere 2.4 percent of
its G.D.P. on transportation and water infrastructure, compared to Europes 5 percent and Chinas 9. Many transportation experts also argue for a significantly higher tax on
gas. This is politically difficult, if not impossible, as illustrated by the way Republicans have latched onto currently high gas prices as an argument against Obama, and the
president's high-profile response, cheerleading the expansion of domestic oil and gas exploration as a solution. But the fact is gas here is cheap, relatively speaking:
Americans are likely at any given time to be paying about half as much for fuel as Europeans. Yet gas-related revenue is where much of the nations infrastructure funding
comes from. Weve got one of the lowest federal gasoline taxes in the world, said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. The other countries that have
gasoline taxes as low as ours include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. And thats not the only issue with the gas tax, which is about 18 cents per
gallon and which provides much of the funding for the nation's highways and mass transit (New Yorks M.T.A. derives some $1 billion from it per year). It's not pegged to
inflation, so it provides ever less revenue in real terms. Also, it's a victim of its own success: Today, thanks in part to the fact that the gas tax makes it more expensive to
burn fuel, cars are much more fuel-efficient. Less consumption equals less revenue. But while transit-dedicated revenue from gas is going down, the need to spend money
on the nation's aging transportation infrastructure is going up. The interstate system, most of it is already approaching half a century old, says Yaro. Its at the end of its
useful life. Big stretches need to be rebuilt and theres no money to rebuild them, much less create any new capacity in the system." The president, at least rhetorically,
recognizes that. He's proposed a half-trillion-dollar, six-year transportation plan. And hes suggested a $50 billion infrastructure bank that would leverage private funding.
As of now, they're still just proposals.

So far he hasnt really put his political capital behind

it because he has other priorities, said Schank. In this years State of the Union, the president made a strong argument for infrastructure spending. During the Great
Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge, he said. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and
Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. In the next
few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. "But you need to fund these projects. Take the money
we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. The you in that sentence was

the Republican-controlled House is looking to cut

transportation spending, not increase it. It will be all the president
can do to get them to agree to pass the Senate's version of this year's transportation-spending bill, which more or less
extends the status quo. The White House hasnt recommended funding sources, and the Congress has been
reluctant to propose new revenues, says Yaro, of the Regional Plan Association. House
Republicans in particular have staked out a radical position on
infrastructure funding, going so far as to propose eliminating mass-transit financing entirely from the gas tax.
Congress. But

Link Maritime Transportation General

Maritime transportation funding trades off with other
agenda items election year and spending concerns
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,

environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 3-21-2014 United States: Congress Funds The Agencies And Looks
Ahead To FY2015
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/301526/Marine+Shipping/Congress+F
unds+the+Agencies DA: 6/7/14
For the first time in many years, Congress actually enacted
appropriation bills to fund
maritime
agencies

12

the Federal Government through September 30, 2014. This was done in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113-76).

As a result, the federal

and transportation

have the budgets they need to get some important work done. The following is a summary of the key provisions of

the FY2014 budget. A forecast of where Congress is going this year in regards to major maritime legislation will be included in the conclusion of this article. Highlights of the FY2014 Budget Agreement Congress
enabled the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act by first passing the Bipartisan Budget Act (Pub.L. 113-67). The Bipartisan Budget Act established the overall funding limits for the federal government for
2014- 2015. The Budget Act also represents the first time in four years that Congress has actually passed a budget agreement. The budget was negotiated between Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Cong. Paul Ryan
(R-WI), the respective chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees. As the two leaders have publicly stated, they worked off the art of the possible, not what they knew they couldn't reach agreement on.
From the levels set in the budget agreement, the appropriation committees could perform their jobsfunding the federal government at least for FY2014. Below are some of the highlights of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act. The Department of Transportation $600M for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructurethe so-called TIGER grantsto fund infrastructure projects of regional and national
significance, including a set-aside of $35M for planning grants. U.S. Maritime Administration: $186M for the Maritime Security Program to preserve the U.S. flag merchant fleet; $38.5M for the subsidy cost of title XI
loan guarantees for shipbuilding; and $16M for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and $11.3M for the state maritime academies. Infrastructure projects at ports are eligible for the TIGER program and, on average,
have received about 10 percent of the funding to date. Setting aside money for planning grants is a new allocation for the TIGER program. Finally, funding the title XI program represents a new infusion of cash for
the shipbuilding loan guarantee program. With a subsidy amount of 10 percent, this will enable the Maritime Administration to fund close to $400M in new shipbuilding loans. With a new (Acting) Administrator at the
helm of the Maritime Administration, one hopes that the title XI program is resuscitated and the cumbersome review procedures streamlined. The Department of Homeland Security FEMA: A total of $1.5B for grants,
contracts, and cooperative agreements, including $466.3M for the State Homeland Security ("HLS") Grant Program, $600M for the Urban Area Security Initiative, and $100M for port security grants. Ports, with the
support of the American Association of Port Authorities ("AAPA"), successfully fought back against the Administration's proposal to consolidate all HLS grants into one block grant to states, fearing they might not get
their fair share from state agencies. Although $100M is considerably less than the $400M authorized for these grants in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, at least it gives ports a separate bucket to
shoot at. U.S. Coast Guard: A total of $1.375B for acquisition, construction, and improvements, including the cost of production of the 7th National Security Cutter ("NSC") and the contract for long-lead time
materials for the 8th NSC. (Huntington Ingalls has the contract for long-lead time materials for the 7th NSC.) Admiral Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard, has hinted that he is looking to fund the 8th (and final)
NSC in the FY2015 budget, continue work on the Offshore Patrol Cutter, and perhaps start work on a new icebreaker in the FY2015 budget. (As reported in Seapower Magazine on January 24, 2014.) With the Coast
Guard's newly released Arctic Strategy, it makes sense to look at its icebreaking capabilities. (For a copy of the Strategy, see: www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.) Customs and Border
Protection ("CBP"): A total of $10.6B for security, enforcement, and investigations, including $351M for border security fencing and $805M for air and marine operations. This budget will enable CBP to add 2,000
more agents at U.S. ports of entry. (And they say we don't spend enough on border security!) >The Department of Defense U.S. Navy: A total of $15B for shipbuilding and conversion of naval vessels, to remain
available until obligated until September 30, 2018, provided no funds for construction are spent in a foreign yard. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A total of $1.656T (from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) to
remain available until expended for the construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and restoration. The Secretary of the Army may initiate up to four new construction
starts (three for navigation, one for environmental restoration), provided the Secretary sends Congress a report on out-year funding for the new starts. The Environmental Protection Agency $20M in clean diesel
engine or Diesel Emissions Reduction Act ("DERA") grants. These grants can be used by private companies and public transit agencies to purchase new diesel engines or to upgrade existing ones and are funded
through a coalition of regional and nonprofit entities. (For more information on the DERA Program, see www.epa.gov/diesel/grantfund.htm.) The Department of the Interior For the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management: $166.8M for leases for oil and gas, other minerals, and energy on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"). For the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: $122.7M for regulation of activities on
the OCS. Summary of the FY14 Budget Agreement and Outlook for FY2015 Now that agencies have budgets that last through FY2014, they can begin to plan, issue contracts, and begin to award grants. The
Department of Transportation ("DOT"), Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")/ Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") all have grant-making authority.
The White House will submit its FY2015 budget request to Congress the first week of March 2014. In the meantime, Congress sent the President a clean bill raising the debt limit ceiling until March.

Outlook for Other 2014 Congressional Actions

The House-Senate Conference on the Water Resources Development

Act ("WRDA"), which funds port dredging and maintenance, is still underway despite this author's predictions it would be wrapped up by now. Cong. Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure ("T&I") Committee, admitted (at a recent Bloomberg Government conference) that

it's been "slow going

." The passage of funding for the Army Corps of

Engineers, above, may have taken some pressure off this Conference. On February 11, 2014, the House T&I Committee ordered reported H.R. 4005, the "Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2014," with a
manager's amendment. The amendment included new cargo preference requirements. We will address these amendments in detail in a separate advisory. Any urgent maritime problem that needs a legislative fix
should be addressed in this major maritime legislation, which Congress usually passes every two years. Chairman Shuster and the Administration have both begun work on principles for the next surface
transportation bill. The current lawMoving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, commonly referred to as MAP-21expires this coming September. The main issue for reauthorization is how to fund the
Highway Trust Fund. Congress balked last time and is very reluctant to get near an increased gas tax, especially in an election year. In fact, both Chairman Shuster and Chairman Barbara Boxer (of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee) have written off the gas tax increase as a funding solution for "MAP-22." Other options include use of repatriated overseas revenues and a user fee based on vehicle miles
travelled (or "VMT"). It will be up to the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the Senate Finance Committee to determine how to fund the next round of surface transportation projects. While the surface
transportation bill is largely focused on roads and bridges, there is an increasing focus on a national freight network. The current freight network, which is under review at the DOT, is limited to highways and needs
to be expanded to include ports. Even the President in his State of the Union Address identified the need to upgrade our ports. After all, how do goods come into and out of the U.S., except through our ports?

This year is an election year so it remains to be seen how many

difficult issues the Congress will address before the election Hope is
higher for actions on
tax reform,
,

113th

controversial issues, such as taxes and

during the lame duck sessionboth post-election and before the new

Congress is sworn in. This may provide the window needed to pass a Coast Guard authorization bill, a new surface transportation bill, and even perhaps some type of immigration reform bill.

Port Dredging

Dredging Controversial
Port dredging is empirically unpopularconcerns over
earmarking funding
Gale, South Florida Business Journal Chief Editor, 12
[Kevin, 2/14/12, South Florida Business Journal, Port dredging is a hot
topic in D.C,
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/blog/2012/02/port-dredging-ishot-topic-in-dc.html, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
Some members of Congress are starting to get antsy about getting
East Coast harbors dredged to accommodate post-Panamax ships.
While PortMiami has $77 million in state funding to help launch its project,
ports further north are fighting for federal funding.
In his Fine Print column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Walter
Pincus tells how the Senate Armed Services Committee grilled Army
Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, who has been nominated to lead the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. (Bostick is already facing a roadblock from
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., over repairs on a dam in his home state.)
The problem for ports and their congressmen is that earmarks aren't
supposed to happen anymore, and that's a classic way for port
dredging projects to get funded.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has concerns about the Port of
Savannah, the column says.
Ive visited Savannah, and the port complex is impressive in size and has
grown rapidly. A major issue, though, is that it's located on a river, and
experts have told me it's more expensive to maintain depth because of silt
carried by currents. The Army Corps has some preliminary funding for the
port, but the Post account indicates events are moving slowly.

Port dredging is unpopularcreates a political firestorm

Kinnard, Associated Press, 12
[Meg, 7/14/12, Associated Press, Panel set up to represent SC wades into
court, http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-07-14/panel-set-

represent-sc-wades-court, accessed 7/9/14, AC]

The commission tasked with representing South Carolina's interests when
it comes to dredging the Savannah River has taken on a higher profile
as it wades into several legal disputes over the $650 million project.
The Savannah River Maritime Commission had operated quietly since it was
set up in 2007 as part of legislators' response to a lawsuit over a proposed
port in Jasper County. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. But the panel _
comprised of 12 appointed members ranging from the chairmen of various
legislative committees to designees from the governor and other state
agencies _ stayed intact, empowered to negotiate and enter into agreements
on South Carolina's behalf.

Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, who sits on the panel as chairman of

the Senate Transportation Committee, said the original plan was for
Georgia to set up a similar commission. The plan was for the two groups
would negotiate issues affecting both states. But that never happened.
Now, with the Jasper project languishing, the South Carolina panel is
fighting for the state to have a say in a controversial project to deepen
the Savannah River. And it's taking on a higher-profile role amid a
firestorm surrounding a project permit approved by state
environmental officials, Grooms said.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a plan to dredge and
deepen the Savannah River to accommodate the higher traffic and
bigger ships that will accompany the expansion of the Panama Canal
in 2014. Last year, South Carolina's Department of Health and
Environmental Control board granted Georgia the necessary water quality
permits.
The decision reversed a rejection from its staff, which had cited unacceptable
harm to the waterway's endangered sturgeon and fragile marshes. The
board's approval came only after Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal made a
last-minute visit to discuss the issue with South Carolina Gov. Nikki
Haley, who appoints the board's members.

Link Port Dredging

Port dredging costs PC budget crisis
AP, 6-21-2012, Report to Congress says seaports on Southeast, Gulf coasts need deeper water for giant ships, The
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/report-to-congress-says-seaports-on-southeast-gulf-coastsneed-deeper-water-for-giant-ships/2012/06/21/gJQAjzrJtV_story.html)

U.S. seaports in the Southeast likely need up to $5 billion to deepen their

shipping channels so they can trade with supersized cargo ships expected to arrive soon through an expanded Panama Canal, a federal

The budget crisis has made federal funding

for port projects extremely tight, especially since Congress and
President Barack Obama for the past two years have sworn off socalled earmark spending that was used to fund such projects in
the past. The Army Corps report said current funding levels for port improvements wont cover all the projects that should be done. If
Congress wont increase the agencys funding for harbor projects, the
agency said Thursday in a report to Congress.

report said, then perhaps state governments and private companies such as shipping lines should be required to pay a greater share.

Port dredging unpopular funding and fights about

choosing ports.
AP U.S. ports race to keep up with bigger Panama Canal 2-7- 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-07-panama-canal_N.htm DA:
6/5/14
"Certainly every port is counting on it having a big impact," said Bernard Groseclose, former chief

executive of South Carolina's seaports who now works as a private consultant. "Everyone is telling the

getting funding may

have just gotten tougher. Federal dollars used for dredging projects
and the studies required to approve them typically get added to congressional
same story: We're getting ready for the Panama Canal expansion." But

budget bills as "earmarks" line items requested by individual lawmakers to benefit their districts back
home. Yet earmark spending was widely denounced as government waste in the
2010 elections that swept Republicans back in control of the U.S. House. As a result, GOP lawmakers in
both the House and Senate have sworn off earmarks for the time being. It's not clear how else port
projects would obtain federal money. "It has the potential to have a dramatic impact," said Nagle, who
insists port projects aren't waste. "There clearly is a distinction between these types of projects and what is

not all ports seeking to

supersize their harbors will get approved and both don't think every U.S. port
needs to be deep enough for the largest ships. But some are questioning how the
federal government decides which projects move forward . In studies
typically the target of the ban." Both Nagle and Groseclose agree

finished last November that recommend deepening Savannah's harbor, the Army Corps of Engineers
concludes the project would have economic benefits for the nation as a whole the benchmark for the
agency's approval. But what the Army Corps hasn't done is take a comprehensive look at all East Coast
ports to determine how many should be dredged to post-Panamax depths and which would reap the most
benefits for the best price. "The Corps is evaluating the cost and benefits of these individual proposals in a
vacuum," said Chris DeScherer, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. "Where does it
make the most sense on the East Coast to have a deep water port? Where does the American taxpayer get
the most bang for his buck with the least environmental impact?" The Army Corps said it hasn't done a
broader study to compare ports, in part, because no one has asked. The Corps doesn't have the authority
to initiate port studies on its own. "To date, there has been no request by the ports or Congress to
undertake a comprehensive study," said Jim Walker, chief of the Navigation Program for the Army Corps of
Engineers.

Icebreakers

Icebreakers Controversial
Icebreakers are unpopularspending and connection to
global warming
Holland, American Security Project Energy and Climate
Senior Fellow, 13
[Andrew, 9-26-13, Alaska Dispatch News, America is failing to meet
challenges of a changing Arctic,

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic, accessed 7/9/14, AC]

Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our
sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S.
Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or
the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the
Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on
strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium
ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar
Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an
extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her
intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14
budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but
purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays federal
budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain.
In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it
controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing
what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest
naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents
Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval
presence.
Perhaps it is because of the political paralysis on climate policy in
Congress and in state governments that it is impossible to have a
rational debate about the impacts of climate change. So long as a
large portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the very
existence climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across
Alaska, we will not be able to make the investments necessary to
take advantage of a changing Arctic.

Link Ice Breakers

Ice breakers cost PC funding is controversial
Stew Magnuson is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist June 2013,
Sticker Shock: $1 Billion for New Icebreaker
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/June/Pages/StickerSho
ck$1BillionforNewIcebreaker.aspx DA: 6/6/14
The cost to build one

icebreaker for the Coast Guard may top $1 billion, a

And thats in 2012 dollars. When work will start in earnest and how
much it will cost when it begins is still unknown. Chronically
underfunded even in the best of fiscal times, the Coast Guard spends about $900 million per year to
new polar

Congressional Research Service report recently stated.

recapitalize all its ships and aircraft. Its the equivalent of telling the Navy they have to suddenly fund another aircraft carrier, said Patrick Bright, chief analytical officer
at AMI International, a shipbuilding consulting firm in Bremerton, Wash. Brian Slattery, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said, Even if the icebreaker was the only
acquisition priority for the Coast Guard, it would be tough to afford it. The service has known for decades that its statutory obligation to be the sole federal agency
responsible for busting through polar ice was at risk. A 1983 polar icebreaking requirements study it produced spelled out the upcoming shortages. Design of a new
icebreaker should start immediately, emphasizing research as well as escort and logistics capabilities, and should reflect the needs of both primary and secondary users,
the report stated. Since then, the service was forced to retire several icebreakers and was only allocated the funding to build one, the Healy. It is a medium-size ship
intended for scientific research, and was not commissioned until 16 years after the 1983 report. The Coast Guard now only has two heavy polar icebreakers remaining, the
Polar Star and Polar Sea, which have exceeded their 30-year service lives and have been in and out of mothballs for several years. Polar Star, after undergoing repairs,
returned to service in December after six years of being docked. After upgrades, it is expected to last another seven to 10 years, said the March 2013 CRS report, Coast
Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization, authored by Ronald ORourke. Polar Sea broke down in 2010 and is no longer operational, the report added. A 2011 study for
Congress said one heavy icebreaker would cost $800 million to $925 million based on 2008 dollars, but by 2012 it would swell to $900 million to $1 billion. The Coast
Guard has requested relatively small amounts in the 2013 and 2014 budgets $8 million and $2 million respectively to kick off the acquisition program with an eye

Congress will have to

decide whether it will fund a new ship all at once, or incrementally. A one-year allocation may come at the expense
of other shipbuilding programs, he noted. The Coast Guard during the corresponding 10 years will be attempting to acquire some 25 offshore
toward awarding a contract in about five years, and delivery in 10, about the time Polar Star would be decommissioned. ORourke said

patrol cutters, one of its most expensive acquisition programs to date. It is currently having a hard time completing its fleet of eight national security cutters. It is

Whether it will receive the greenlight from

Congress to build the eighth in these austere budgetary times remains to be
seen. The national security cutter, a sophisticated ship with expensive weapons, communications and sensors, costs almost half the amount of an icebreaker,
requesting funding for the seventh for fiscal year 2014.

which doesnt require any of those high-tech systems, Bright said. The unique ships use mass and velocity to move through frozen waters. As they are propelled forward,
they move up onto the ice, and the weight of the hull breaks it. That requires a large ship with powerful engines, a 2007 National Academies study on the Coast Guards
icebreaker fleet stated. It also has reinforced steel and a double hull at the bow in case of a breach. Protecting the rudders and propellers or propulsion units is of
paramount importance in icebreaker hull design, it also stated. They must not protrude from the ship. Despite the lack of weapons and other high-tech systems, there
are also special items that go on those ships, and that jacks prices up, Bright said. And at 13,000 to 17,000 tons, that is an awful lot of steel to buy, he added. Slattery
said the seven- to 10-year estimate of additional service life for the Polar Star is generous. It is unrealistic that that replacement vessel will come online by the time
they are going to have to pull the Polar Star out for good, he added. It has been about 40 years since U.S. industry has built a heavy icebreaker. The medium-sized Healy
was built by Avondale Shipyards in Louisiana, which has changed hands twice and is now owned by Huntington Ingalls Industries. It announced its plans to shutter the old
Avondale yard this year, then reversed course, and said it would now build oil and gas exploration equipment, according to a company press release. Even $200 million per

This high
pricetag is only for one vessel. The requirements on the books call for three medium and three heavy icebreakers, he noted.
year in incremental funding would be a pretty significant chunk of the entire recapitalization budget, Slattery said. Thats not the worst of it.

The Healy is essentially a research vessel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he pointed out. The Heritage Foundation has suggested leasing private
icebreakers to at least mitigate the gap in capability. That would provide the government with the most essential capability, which is breaking the ice so we can get to
places that regular vessels cannot get to. ORourke said along with leasing, there have also been plans to ask other federal agencies such as the Navy, which benefit from
the icebreakers, to chip in some of the money. During a recent budget hearing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chair of the homeland security appropriations committee,
said lawmakers would look for icebreaker funding from outside the Department of Homeland Security budget, according to SeaPower Magazine. Adm. Robert Papp Jr.,
commandant of the Coast Guard, testified at a different hearing that there were no icebreakers available in the world to lease. A for-hire ship would have to be purpose-

It almost seems like one of those things that is never going to happen
based on price, Bright said.
built, the CRS report said.

Icebreakers are controversial Obama push for upgrades

opposed by GOP
Mike M. Ahlers, senior producer, transportation and regulation, for CNN
Polar icebreaker dispute ties up Coast Guard appropriations. 11-3- 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/03/politics/congress-polar-icebreakers/ DA:
6/6/14
With the nation's only two heavy-duty polar icebreakers broken and out of service, the Obama administration
and congressional Republicans are clashing on how best to put the U.S. Coast Guard back into the icebusting business. House Republicans, who say they want to force the administration's hand, are pushing a Coast Guard
appropriations bill that would decommission the icebreaker Polar Star, which is now being repaired, in just three years,
saying that keeping the 35- year-old ship afloat is "throwing good money after bad." The bill requires the administration to come up with a comprehensive plan to replace

the administration responded by announcing it is opposing the

appropriations bill, citing the icebreaker issue. Decommissioning the Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking
capacity," the administration said. The ship is needed until long-term plans can be developed, it said. The icebreaker issue is one that
the aging icebreaker fleet. On Thursday,

decades in the making

has been
, and has gained urgency with the thawing of ice in the Arctic Circle. Diminishing ice, widely believed to
be caused by global warming, may actually increase the need for icebreakers, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. The opening of
waterways could lead to expanded commercial, cruise and military ship operations, and increase exploration for oil and other resources, the report says. The Coast Guard
uses icebreakers to defend U.S. sovereignty and interests, monitor sea traffic, launch search and rescue missions, conduct fisheries and law enforcement operations, and
support scientific research, including resupplying McMurdo Station in Antarctica, a mission that is now contracted to Russian and Swedish icebreakers. Currently, the U.S.
Coast Guard has only three Polar icebreakers -- the Polar Star and its sister ship the Polar Sea, and the newer but less robust medium polar icebreaker Healy. In addition,
the National Science Foundation leases a smaller ship, Nathaniel B. Palmer, for research in the Antarctic. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30year design life. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30-year design life. Both the Polar Star and Polar Sea have already exceeded their 30-year
design life, and both have been removed from service because of breakdowns. The Polar Star was laid up in 2006, and the Polar Sea suffered unexpected engine problems
in June 2010, and it has been out of service ever since. Since mid-2010, the United States has had no heavy-duty icebreaker. Russia, which has a much larger Arctic border,
has a fleet of about 20 icebreakers, including seven nuclear-powered ones. The Coast Guard says it needs at least three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers to fulfill
its statutory missions, but would require even more ships if the Coast Guard is to comply with a Naval Operations Concept issued in 2010 requiring a presence in both the
Arctic and Antarctic. The Coast Guard also has a fleet of icebreakers in the Great Lakes that keep shipping lanes open there. The Congressional Research Service said one
potential concern for Congress is the absence of a plan for replacing the Polar Star upon completion of its seven- to 10-year life after it returns to service in late 2012. That
is why Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, included the provision to decommission the Polar Star, said spokesman Jason Galanes. "We absolutely support the Arctic
icebreaker mission," Galanes said. "We're forcing this decision rather then allowing the administration to kick the can down the road." In a statement, the Office of
Management and Budget said

repairs

the administration "strongly opposes" the provision, and

will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking

that the
to the Polar Star "
capability requirements are finalized."

Icebreakers cause controversy spending concerns and

tied to climate debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American
Security Project, a non-partisan national security think tank 9-26- 2013
America is failing to meet challenges of a changing Arctic
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic DA: 6/7/14
Americas Arctic
made it difficult

, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness

for us

to take advantage of the

vast

resources

have

and enormous opportunity of the region.

Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it
collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,

The U
fullest extent
Russia will certainly set the standards.

nited

of International Law

S has not claimed territory in the Arctic to the

because the Congress refuses
tates

fully

U.S.

to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four

nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They
are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can
have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally,

we need

a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the

U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on

ice-breaker
The heavy icebreaker
Polar Star is undergoing trials
The Coast Guards
budget includes $2 million for plans for a
new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million In
todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is
uncertain.
strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium

in service today, the Healy.

sea

service life.

for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year

proposed FY14

In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest

nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence.

because of the political paralysis on climate policy in

it is impossible to have a rational debate
large
portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the very
existence
we will not be able to make the
investments
to take advantage of
Arctic
Perhaps it is

Congress and in state governments that

about the impacts of climate change. So long as a

climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska,

necessary

a changing

Icebreakers causes fights Obama and Congress at odds

over strategy
AP 11-4-2011 Congress and White House differ over icebreakers.
http://townhall.com/news/politicselections/2011/11/04/congress_and_white_house_differ_over_icebreakers DA:
6/6/14

icebreaker ships are old

Congress and the White
House are at odds over how to respond
The House
would decommission the Polar Star
The White House
strongly opposes
decommissioning
The country's only two heavy-duty

and broken, and

as the melting of polar ice increases the economic and security stakes in the Arctic region

on Friday was working on a Coast Guard spending bill that

the last somewhat seaworthy icebreaker after its sister ship, the Polar Sea, goes out of service in the near future.
"

" the legislation because

, slated to be

, in a statement issued Thursday, said it

the Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking

capacity." In the Senate, Sen . Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., is trying to block the decommissioning of either ship with a provision she added to a Coast Guard bill. The ships are based in the Seattle area and support
hundreds of jobs there. "Our nation needs icebreakers," she said at the committee meeting. "With Russia moving many troops to the Arctic, and Chinese investors buying parts of Greenland, this is also a national
security issue." There's little disagreement on the need for a U.S. presence in the Arctic. The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the shrinking of the icecap will result in increased commercial
and military ship activity and greater exploration for oil and other resources. That calls into demand the functions of icebreakers: defending U.S. sovereignty and economic interests, monitoring sea traffic, law
enforcement, conducting search and rescue operations and scientific research. " We desperately need the Coast Guard and the administration to do what we have asked them to do really now for more than 10
years _ define what our mission is in the Arctic ," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Coast Guard subcommittee. He said it costs tens of millions of
dollars a year to keep the two vessels tied up at the dock, and he hopes the House move to take them out of service will push the administration into deciding how large a fleet is needed in the future. The lone
Alaska congressmen, Republican Don Young, opposes decommissioning icebreakers and wants to increase the number of vessels in any way possible, spokesman Luke Miller said. Young has introduced a bill that
would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into long-term lease agreements for two new icebreakers. The icebreakers are supposed to have a 30-year service life. The Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is docked in
Seattle, in caretaker status since 2006. The Polar Sea, commissioned in 1978, suffered an engine breakdown last year and has been out of service. The Coast Guard also has a third, medium-duty icebreaker, the
Healy, that is used mainly for scientific research. The White House said Congress has previously approved funds to reactivate the Polar Star by the end of next year, extending the life of the ship for seven to 10
years . That, it said, "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized.

Bering Strait Tunnel

The plan would cause a massive political firestormits
viewed as a ridiculous pork project
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR 2006 (How pet projects in Alaska became pet peeve
on Hill, July 25, lexis)

the
Government Hill neighborhood he calls home has become a front in the fight
against pet projects in Congress. That's because land just a block from Mr. Pease's home could be ripped
apart if plans for a major bridge proceed. Officially, it's called the Knik Arm Crossing. But the US public knows it by a different name: the
"bridge to nowhere." And ever since it drew headlines last fall, it's become a poster child for
congressional earmarks. Earmarks are items that lawmakers on Capitol Hill tuck into spending bills to fund projects
back home. Supporters call it investment. Critics call it "pork." Both call it
one of the biggest issues in American politics this year. "I couldn't believe our little
Thomas Pease's flower-scented backyard might seem to be an odd place for a battle over federal spending. But

neighborhood fight was actually going national," says Pease, an elementary schoolteacher who opposes the bridge plan. "But I certainly
thought the name was appropriate." Actually, the "bridge to nowhere" refers to two bridges. One is the Knik Arm Crossing, which would
connect Alaska's largest city with a little-used port on the other side of a glacier-fed channel that drains into the Pacific. The other is a span
that would link Ketchikan, Alaska, to sparsely populated Gravina Island. They initially received earmarks of $231 million and $223 million in

The moniker resonated across the nation last fall and

spurred a revolt - both in public and in the halls of Congress - against
wasteful federal spending. "Those three words changed the view of
millions of how we spend money on a federal level ," says the man who coined the
last year's transportation-funding bill.

phrase, Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington watchdog group. Spans divide Alaska Even in Alaska,
which leads the nation in per-capita pork-barrel spending, locals were divided over the merits of the projects. In a December survey of
Anchorage residents by pollster Ivan Moore, 46 percent opposed the Knik Arm Crossing, while 44 percent favored it. When told that the
earmark was removed and that the state could spend the money on any transportation project, a stronger majority - 56 percent - wanted to
use the money elsewhere. "It's obviously not a high priority," Mr. Moore says. Supporters defend the bridge as economically vital to
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the fastest-growing district in Alaska. Alaska has as much right to a large bridge as any other
state, they say. "The Golden Gate was a bridge to nowhere. Mackinac back in Michigan was a bridge to nowhere,'" says former Anchorage
Mayor George Wuerch, chairman of the state-funded Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the organization overseeing bridge plans. "This is not
a bridge to nowhere. These are the two fastest-growing populations of this state." Alaska's veteran Sen. Ted Stevens (R), a legend for his
ability to funnel federal funds home, has argued that critics fail to grasp the bridge's historic mission. "What they forget was that in the
Western movement of the country, if the people who were paying the taxes at that time said it was wasteful to build roads to the West we
would have never had the West," he told Anchorage reporters last year, as criticism of the bridges crescendoed. Proponents, who hope the
Knik Arm Crossing will be built by 2010, say it will open up new, lower-cost land needed for development. Already, speculators have started
buying property on the other side of Knik Arm, where the bridge is expected to deliver traffic. But skeptics here say the project would
promote sprawl and, with a cost estimate of between $600 million and $2 billion, it would divert resources from revitalizing Anchorage itself.
Routing traffic to this spot in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is impractical, they add, because it's not near population centers. Critics also
worry about the effect on beluga whales and other wildlife. View from Government Hill In Government Hill, Anchorage's oldest
neighborhood, the bridge debate is about more than budgets. Locals fear the planned access road for the bridge would ruin the quality of life,
bringing traffic, congestion, and general degradation. "At the risk of sounding like a radical, there's something undemocratic about having to
defend your home from the government," Pease says. In a city dominated by cookie-cutter condos and sprawling McMansion subdivisions,
Government Hill is a throwback. Architectural masterpieces mix with refurbished Quonset huts and old-fashioned cabins. Its location on a bluff
above downtown Anchorage gives it a microclimate warm enough for local gardeners such as Pease to grow apples, cherries, and other
delicacies rarely found in Alaska. The social atmosphere is also warm. Government Hill denizens were invited recently to a celebratory picnic
thrown by a pair of newlyweds and, Pease says, residents are known to barter garden produce for salmon. "It's one of the few neighborhoods
in Anchorage that has a real neighborhood feel to it," says Stephanie Kesler, president of the Government Hill Community Council. The Knik
Arm Bridge idea, too, has a long history, proposed in various forms since the 1950s, with boosters even then claiming Anchorage lacked
sufficient space for development. Justifications abound. The "world-wide recognition which would accompany the construction of this unique
and monumental project would certainly be valuable to the State of Alaska," said a 1972 study prepared for the state Department of

Such thinking may have spurred other megaprojects once embraced by state leaders but never realized. They
have had plans to: * Drop hydrogen bombs to carve out a deepwater port off northwest Alaska. * Erect a domed city near
Mount McKinley. * Gouge a Bering Strait railroad tunnel to Russia . * Hook up a water
pipeline to California. "We live in a grand state, and it inspires grand thinking ,
which can be a good thing until you take it to extremes. And then it
gets a little ridiculous," says bridge opponent Emily Ferry, coordinator of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project in
Highways. A state that inspires grand thinking

Juneau.

Costs PC push needed to overcome opposition

Barry, 11 [Mark, Senior Fellow for Public Policy, Summit Council for World Peace, 10-4-2011, Universal Peace
Federation, http://www.upf.org/programs/bering-strait-project/4017-mp-barry-advancing-the-bering-strait-tunnel-project-inthe-united-states-and-canada]

a sustained lobbying effort in Washington, DC, and

Ottawa eventually will be necessary, but at present any effort in either
For international and strategic reasons,

capital would probably not make much difference. Promoting critical components of a Bering
Strait crossing, such as an Alaska Canada Rail Link, will have to be a private sector-led effort, and the farther away from the
Pacific Northwest you are, the less awareness and interest there is
in this railroad. An ACRL will have to first garner widespread support from Alaska, Yukon, and Alberta, which in the long run will be much more
effective. A high profile and costly Washington, DC, lobbying office is not
relevant or needed at this stage. Congress will move only when the private
interests are on board and jobs are quantified. This support will only happen from the ground up -- from Alaska to Washington, DC (and
from western Canada to Ottawa), and not the other way around. Regional support, in both the private and public sectors, for an ACRL must be very strong over a sustained
period in order to get Congresss attention.

Security

Security

Link Maritime Security General

Maritime security costs PC Obama pushes, causes
poison pill additions and controversy
Sonia Drobysz. Associate Research Fellow. Bernard Sitt 6-20- 2013

Prospects for the latest US nuclear security bill

http://www.vertic.org/pages/posts/prospects-for-the-latest-us-nuclear-securitybill-520.php DA: 6/9/14
the
House
voted in favour of An act to
provide for protection of maritime navigation and prevention of
terrorism
On 20 May,

United States

of Representatives

amend title 18, United States Code, to

nuclear

, and for other purposes. Adopted with a 390-3 vote, bill H.R. 1073 was introduced on 12 March by Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. He explained that the legislation had

been prepared in full cooperation with Democratic colleagues. The so-called Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act of 2013 is the implementing legislation for four
major nuclear security and terrorism treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT), the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
(CPPNM amendment), and two 2005 protocols to the Convention concerning Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol concerning Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf. The Senate adopted
resolutions of advice and consent for all four treaties ratification in 2008 (see, for example, Senate Report on Resolution of advice and consent to ICSANT ratification), declaring that certain provisions were selfexecuting. As noted in the resolutions, however, other provisions obligate the US to criminalize certain offenses, make those offenses punishable by appropriate penalties, and authorize the assertion of jurisdiction
over such offenses. United States Code Title 18 on crimes and criminal procedure should therefore be amended to set up a comprehensive domestic legal framework indispensable to combatting terrorist threats
effectively, as sponsor James Sensenbrenner pointed out. From that perspective, bill H.R. 1073 defines and clarifies key treaty terms such as radioactive material, nuclear material, nuclear facility, and device. It
also provides for new offences and associated penalties, including maritime terrorism acts and the maritime transport of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons (BCN weapons), unlawful possession and use of
radioactive material with the intent to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment, as well as attempts, threats, and conspiracies to commit these offenses. Damaging or
interfering with the operation of a nuclear facility in a manner that causes the release of or increases the risk of the release of radioactive material, causes radioactive contamination or exposure to radiation is also
criminalized. As explained in House report 113-85, U.S criminal jurisdiction is expanded over, for instance, prohibited activities against U.S. ships to include not just those ships flying the flag of the United States,
but also a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Prohibited activities committed by a United States corporation or legal entity would also fall within US jurisdiction,
in addition to those committed by a national of the United States or by a stateless person whose habitual residence is the United States. Furthermore, national enforcement measures are strengthened, updating
grounds permitting the master of a ship to deliver an offender to another state, under certain conditions, to include the new offenses. House report 113-85 rightly emphasizes that the legislation enhances U.S.
national security by modernizing and strengthening the international counterterrorism and counter proliferation legal framework and improving multilateral efforts to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and
complements important United States priorities such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Washington Nuclear Security Summit, and the Proliferation Security Initiative. Effective national
implementation measures for radiological and nuclear treaties and related instruments are in fact crucial to help combat the illicit trafficking and misuse of nuclear and radioactive materials. Leaders at the 2010
Washington and 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summits encouraged all States to enhance their physical protection of and accounting system for nuclear materials, emergency preparedness and response capabilities
and relevant legal and regulatory framework. The IAEA Nuclear Security Plan for 2010-2013 also affirms the need to enhance the global nuclear security framework, especially through facilitation of implementation
of the international legal instruments relevant for nuclear security, including the CPPNM amendment and ICSANT. Adoption of effective implementing legislation in the US would be in line with such objectives and

But as
the bill moves to Senate, its future remains uncertain Previous
attempts to adopt similar legislation failed
Measures on
the
death penalty
and
wiretapping
turned the project into a legislative quagmire Removal
allowed the House to pass the bill
but pushed Senate
Grassley to
eintroduce the contentious language.
should also, as noted by the House report, reinforce the United States leading role in promoting these and other counterterrorism treaties and will prompt other States Parties to join.
.

in 2012.

for certain nuclear terrorism offences

nuclear incident

on extension of federal

the application of

authority to specifically include investigations related to a

on 28 June 2012,

Member Charles

of such measures

Judiciary Committee Ranking

oppose the bill and r

As explained by

Republican co-sponsor John Conyers on March 14, the 2013 proposal is free of proposed language that seemed entirely [] outside the scope of underlying treaties. He explained: the Administration's original
proposal expanded the scope of conduct subject to the death penalty, including new wiretap predicates, and authorized the President to conduct similar agreements in the future without congressional approval.
These controversial provisions are not necessary in order to implement the underlying treaties, and I am grateful for the spirit of cooperation in which the bill before us has been drafted. The National Journal and
Global Security Newswire reported that Senator Grassley, for his part, would now be willing to consider the bill on the Senate floor with a time agreement and a vote on the death penalty. John Conyers nonetheless
noted that

the

bipartisan

proposal has the full backing of Obama

the

Administration, is virtually identical to a bill that passed

by voice vote in this committee and House last Congress, and accordingly urge[d] all the members to support the bill. Hopefully Senators will hear him, so efforts to effectively implement nuclear security and
terrorism conventions can be pursued.

Link Maritime Security Arctic

Arctic security links budget and overstretch concerns,
gets tied to climate change debate
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American
Security Project, a non-partisan national security think tank 9-26- 2013
America is failing to meet challenges of a changing Arctic
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic DA: 6/7/14
Americas Arctic
made it difficult

have
region

, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness

for us

to take advantage of the

vast resources and enormous opportunity of the

. Today, the

Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it collects
more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical
averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free
summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas
ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface and
increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska,

infrastructure to ensure safe navigation

there is insufficient

north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than

700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast
Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish
heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without
us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to
luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour

The U
has not claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent
because the Congress refuses
aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action, Russia will certainly set the standards.
fully

nited

tates

of International Law

U.S.

to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to

extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is
left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally,

we need a military presence

to maintain the security
neither the Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the
infrastructure the ships, or the political ambition
in order

response. Today,

in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster

U.S.

to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the

Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is
undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for
plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In

outlay is uncertain

todays federal budget environment,

even the $2 million

. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what

will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding

because of the political paralysis on climate policy in

it is impossible to have a rational debate
large portion of our political system refuses to acknowledge the very
existence
we will not be able to make the
investments
to take advantage of
Arctic
their naval presence. Perhaps it is

Congress and in

state governments that

about the impacts of climate change. So long as a

climate change -- even in the face of clear evidence across Alaska,

necessary

a changing

Littoral Combat Ships

Littoral combat ships cost PC Congressional opposition
to funding
Valerie Insinna Staff Writer at National Defense Magazine April 2014
Littoral Combat Ship Faces Uncertain Future
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2014/April/Pages/LittoralCo
mbatShipFacesUncertainFuture.aspx DA: 6/11/14
LCS] littoral combat ship program for months instead of going
purchases would be limited to 32. The cuts were no surprise to anyone who
had been following the program, which has long been troubled by cost overruns and
reports of problems during testing and deployment. While the announcement is a major blow to prime contractors
On Feb. 24, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel confirmed rumors that had been swirling around the [
forward with its planned 52 ship buy,

Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, there is a chance a modified version of the ship could emerge as the Navys top choice to fill out its fleet. Hagels announcement halts
contractual discussions beyond 2016, but thats after the next election, said Stu Slade, Forecast Internationals warships analyst. There could be major changes to the
program once a new president and legislators are in office. This isnt a done deal. Its certainly a setback for the LCS program viewed in isolation, but its one that could
yet be reversed, he told National Defense. Hagel sent Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert back to the drawing board,
instructing them to evaluate more capable and lethal alternatives to the ship. The LCS was designed to perform certain missions, such as mine sweeping and antisubmarine warfare, in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and
survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia-Pacific, Hagel said in February. If we were to build out the LCS
program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal restraints, we must direct future shipbuilding
resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict, he added. Officials will consider new designs, existing vessels and a
modified LCS, examining ship cost, delivery date, mission and weapons requirements and sensors, Hagel said in a memo obtained by Reuters. Greenert and Sean Stackley,
the Navys acquisition lead, issued a directive in March establishing a small surface combatant task force to evaluate the Navys options, including the lethality of possible
ship designs to air, surface and undersea threats. The task force will be lead by John Burrow, executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command. The task forces
findings will be due in July. Slade said the Navy most likely will procure larger, better-armed versions of the LCS a move that would increase the price of the ships and
would be even more profitable for Lockheed Martin or Austal. The littoral combat ship comes in two variants the Freedom-class monohull built by Lockheed and Austals
Independence-class trimaran. Both types feature a mission bay that can be outfitted with modules containing weapons, unmanned underwater vehicles and other
equipment for surface warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare. The Freedom-class ship is as survivable in combat as the Navy specified it to be, but
could be modified to be more so, said Joe North, Lockheed Martins program manager. Were building LCS to fight, and its semi-planing steel monohull design meets all of
the current customer requirements in survivability, he said. LCS is actually already more survivable than the three ship classes that it replaces, so if they want to
leverage more requirements on it, they can do that. That comes at a cost. If the Navy decides to move forward with procuring a modified littoral combat ship or even a
frigate-sized ship, both Lockheed Martin and Austal have floated international versions that could fit the bill, Slade said. Lockheeds multi-mission combat ship could be
scaled up from the Freedom classs hull length of 378 feet to that of a frigate and outfitted with a version of the Aegis combat system, according to material from the
company. Before Austal ended its teaming agreement with General Dynamics in 2010, the companies in 2007 debuted their own international LCS variant, although few
details about the ship are known. A modified, frigate-sized LCS could cost about $800 million per copy, or double the current price, Slade said. Not all are convinced that

The program has its fair share of detractors in Congress,

such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Brad Curran, a defense analyst with Frost & Sullivan. Lawmakers have
debated the ships operational and technical capabilities for years, and so far the results have
not been great. The Navy is more likely to select an older, proven design to build up the fleet, Curran said. His personal choice and the ship he
the littoral combat ship will survive, however.

believes is most likely to ultimately be purchased, albeit in small amounts is the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer manufactured by General Dynamics Bath
Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls. Arleigh Burkes can do it all, and theyre proven. They can kill other ships. They can find and kill subs. They can find and kill aircraft and
missiles with the Aegis ballistic missile system and then attack ground targets. Its got a wide variety of weapons, he said. The littoral combat ship, in my opinion, just
cant compare. The Navy could possibly also purchase a frigate from a foreign manufacturer such as the U.K.s BAE Systems or Frances DCNS, he said. While the service

In
this budget environment, how are you going to get a new program
started? Curran asked. Its very difficult, and the Navy has not shown that theyve been great about putting out a new ship. Look at
the history lately. Youve got the littoral combat ship, and then youve got the Zumwalt DDG 1000. ... It hasnt had a great record. The littoral combat ship
program has been plagued by criticism since its inception. One of the most scathing
might be able to afford a modified littoral combat ship or another existing vessel, it is unlikely that it will be able to procure a new design, Curran and Slade agreed.

claims was that the ship would not be able to sustain itself through a major battle.

Port Security
Port security causes controversy spending backlash
AP, 8-12-2011 US ports spend big on post-9/11 security

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9P2MPG81.htm DA: 6/7/14

The big challenge has been keeping a closer watch on imported cargo without imposing a costly
slowdown on foreign trade. There's also a huge cost to the nation's 185 public seaports
themselves, often passed along in tariffs and fees to the shippers. The Savannah port, for example, tacks on a $5.75
security fee for every cargo container it handles. " It clearly

is unfortunate and an extreme cost

financially on international commerce," said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, who can
see the lines of trucks pulling their cargo through radiation scanners from his office window. "But there's no real

ports worry Congress will make deep cuts in port

security funding in the fiscal 2012 budget. An appropriations bill that recently
passed the House included $1 billion in cuts to the Department of Homeland Security,
largely by slashing its grant programs. The American Association of Port Authorities says U.S. ports stand to
lose half or more of the funding they're counting on to fulfill security improvement plans that look
five years ahead. "With the debt-ceiling crisis, we're just getting hammered ,"
alternative today." U.S.

said Susan Monteverde, the group's vice president for government affairs.

Agency

Treaties

Treaties Controversial
Approving any international treaty is massively unpopular
nationalist backlash
Kaye, Penn State Law Professor, 13
[David, September/October 2013, Stealth Multilateralism, Foreign
Affairs, 92: 5, 113-124,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139649/david-kaye/stealthmultilateralism, AC]
The U.S. Senate rejects multilateral treaties as if it were sport . Some
it rejects outright, as when it voted against the Convention on the
Rights of Persons With Disabilities in 2012 and the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. Others it rejects through
inaction: dozens of treaties are pending before the Senate,
pertaining to such subjects as labor, economic and cultural rights,
endangered species, pollution, armed conflict, peacekeeping,
nuclear weapons, the law of the sea, and discrimination against
women. Often, presidents dont even bother pushing for ratification,
since they know the odds are long: under the U.S. Constitution, it takes
only one-third of the Senate to reject a treaty.
The United States commitment problem has grown so entrenched that
foreign governments no longer expect Washingtons ratification or its full
participation in the institutions treaties create. The world is moving on; laws
get made elsewhere, with limited (if any) American involvement. The United
States still wields influence in the UN Security Council and in international
financial and trade institutions, where it enjoys a formal veto or a privileged
position. But when it comes to solving global problems beyond the old
centers of diplomatic and economic power, the United States suffers the selfinflicted wound of diminishing relevance. Administrations operate under
the shadow of Senate rejectionism, harboring low expectations that
their work will be ratified.
The foundation of the Senates posture is the belief, widespread
among conservative Republicans, that multilateral treaties
represent a grave threat to American sovereignty and democracy.
Treaties, they argue, create rules that interfere with the democratic
process by allowing foreigners to make law that binds the United
States. These sovereigntists portray treaties as all constraint, no
advantage, as Jon Kyl, Douglas Feith, and John Fonte did recently in these
pages (The War of Law, July/August 2013). These Republicans
automatically resist, in the words of the 2012 GOP platform,
treaties that weaken or encroach upon American sovereignty. And
because such a small group of senators can block any given treaty,
they essentially control ratification.

OMEGA
Expansion of OMEGA triggers political fights
Lauren De Vore, 11/19/2009, LLNL Community News, Algae could turn
tide for biofuel production,
https://newsline.llnl.gov/_rev02/articles/2009/nov/11.13.09-algae.php

Theres biology what strains of algae are best at producing oil, and can we make them grow in the
system? Theres engineering not just plastic bags in the ocean, but the whole system design and all of

OMEGA will
require new infrastructure. And of course there are the
environmental issues, including policies, politics and public
acceptance. Despite the magnitude of the undertaking, Trent was adamant about the need to push
the logistics involved in maintaining such a system. Theres the economic angle

ahead. Its clear that something has to be done and done soon about our energy problems. Things are not
sustainable the way they are now. OMEGA may not be the best way to go, but we
need to investigate it to determine its technical and economic feasibility. We need to try other new ideas
as well. If we wait too long, the environment will be the first thing to go as we do whatever it takes just to
feed the growing population.

Army Corps of Engineers

Army Corps projects link perceived as wasteful spending
and dominated by politics
Chris Edwards, researcher and author at the CATO Institute, March 2012
Cutting the Army Corps of Engineers,
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace DA: 6/7/14
The decentralized and congressionally dominated structure of the
Army Corps has made it an unparalleled pork-barrel machine .
Virtually all the agency's construction budget is "earmarked" for
individual projects in particular states. Politics dominates any
rational process of trying to fund only those projects that have high
returns. Taxpayer money is often directed to low-value projects in the districts of powerful politicians,
not to those projects that make the most economic sense. While Corps' projects are supposed to be based

political pull often determines the

agency's priorities. In an investigation of the Corps in 2003, the Washington Post noted that
"powerful members of Congress dictate th e selection, pace, and
price tag for major projects ."25 While levee upgrades in central New Orleans were stalled
on detailed economic and environmental analyses,

prior to Hurricane Katrina, dubious projects elsewhere in Louisiana and other states moved ahead.

Coast Guard
Coast guard funding causes controversy GOP budget
conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,

do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas

The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget

conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionthe
most treasured assets: our oceans and public lands.

super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But

fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing

Republicans

these necessary services to the American people, congressional

must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and
spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and

Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.

will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
places to hunt, fish, and relax.

Impact on

public lands and

oceans

he Whit e House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determ ining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduct ion of 8.2 percent for discret ionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discret ionary , except for one account in the C oast Guard

that has a defense funct ion and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to indiv idual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analy sis shows that the Nat ional Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor ex ample, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can
easily assume that cut s on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a num ber of front s, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies prov ide. Less accurate weat her forecasts One of the most im portant and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weat her prediction. But sequestrat ion could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weat her prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate nat ural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the cat astrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weat her
prediction resources. Its National Weat her Service is the nat ions primary source of the dat a and analysis, form ing the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane C enters storm-tracking capabilit ies to the long-term projections of global clim ate change. Even the Weather C hannels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nat ions when it comes to forecast ing capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predict ions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predict ed its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result , when meteorologists sought to predict the arriv al and int ensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy,
they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their report s. Even though our domestic weat her prediction capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nat ions aging weat her monitoring satellites. The Government Account ability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 mont hsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of im pending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys
Procurement, Acquisit ion, and C onstruct ion account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets project ions. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalit ies due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy dev elopment is an im portant and legit imate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) prov ide substant ial nat ural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the nat ural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestrat ion, however, could potent ially hinder

this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy
development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more
than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its
permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its
Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in
government agencies from planning, study ing, and perm itting

October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and

ocean management agencies

face cuts to the programs t

hat allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient t imeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy dev elopment and in some cases potent ially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan out come weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau

of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devot ed to energy and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analy ses of energy projects. The Department s Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has funds that allow it to study the im pacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestrat ion. These types of cut s could delay the env ironmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the
sequester moves forward. This agency manages explorat ion, science, leasing, permitt ing, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer C ontinental Shelf. Addit ionally, offshore drilling safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardsthe Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 million altogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in it s budget justificat ion: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer C ontinental Shelf] facilit ies and operat ionscovering tens of thousands of
safety and pollut ion prevent ion componentsto prevent offshore accidents and spills and to ensure a safe working env ironment. The bureau strives to conduct annual inspect ions of all oil and gas operations on the OC S, while focusing an increasing proportion of resources on the highest risk operations in order to exam ine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, and other major accidents. A $16 million cut to these operat ions could be dangerous for worker safety and well- being, as well as that of the ecosystems, communities, and businesses that rely on a healthy ocean. Furt her reduct ions to the budget of the U.S. C oast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spill, could also affect its ability to respond to emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wildland firefighters Our land management
agencies also make critical investments in fight ing forest and wildland fires. This year saw devastat ing fires on bot h private and public lands but was part icularly bad for nat ional forestsa fire in the Gila National Forest, for example, was New Mexicos largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire C enter has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and crit ical funding for fighting these blazes. They help keep American families safe in times of need, part icularly those whose homes are close to wild places. But the U.S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to it s firefighting capabilit ies under sequestration. Its Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire
suppression, hazardous-fuels removal, restorat ion, and state fire assistance, among other things, is slated to be cut by $172 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. Addit ionally, the Department of the Interiors Wildland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestrat ion. In total, funding for wildland fire prevent ion and assistance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 million. Without such funding, not only will Americans property and liv es be more at risk, but special places such as national forests and national parks will be less resilient in the face of future fires. C losures of national parks National parksoften referred to as Americas best ideaare well-loved and protect our
nat ural, cult ural, and historical heritage. In addition to famous nat ional parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, the 398 national park units managed by the National Park Serv ice range from C ape C od Nat ional Seashore to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to the Flight 93 National Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these national park units would face budgetary impacts under sequestrat ion. These could include park closures, fewer visitor resources including educat ional programs, and a reduct ion in park staff such as rangers who help with upkeep on these sites. Combined, all of these changes could lead to far worse v isitor experiences at nat ional parks, making them less desirable vacation destinations for American and internat ional tourists. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget determ ined that the National Park
Service as a whole faces a $218 million cut in fiscal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the majority of this cut is in the Operation of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protection of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, v isitor serv ices like education and interpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction and campgrounds. Potential cut s to the nat ional Park Service in fiscal year 2013 The Operat ion of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay the National Park Services employees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 millioncut to the O perat ion of the National Park System account could cripple some of the most important funct ions of the National Park Service, which was already facing
a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backlog. While it is difficult to know for sure what exact ly would be cut due to lack of informat ion from the agency, the National Parks Conservat ion Association speculates that these cuts would very likely lead to the furloughingor indefinite closureof nat ional parks. A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season. The organization also warned that cuts of this magnitude could lead to park closures and calculated that an approximately 8 percent cut would be equivalent to closing up to 200 national park units with the smallest operat ing budgets, closing 150 parks with low visitation rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the National Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosem ite, and Gateway National
Recreat ion Area. In addition to the fact that visitors may not be able to see these places, their closures could also lead to declines in rev enue and even jobsthe Nat ional Park Service st imulated $31 billion in economic contribut ions and 258,000 jobs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also prov ide im portant opportunit ies for recreat ion, including hunt ing and fishing. Many of the areas that are open to these act iv ities also provide nonwildlife-relat ed recreation opportunit ies such as hiking, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas im portant places to play, they also are im portant econom ic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service found that more than 37 million Americans hunted or fished in 2011, contributing billions of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee
recreat ional hunting and fishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages 256 million acres of public lands, much of which is open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget line item is Management of Lands and Resources, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account will see an $85 million cut in fiscal year 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fishing opportunit ies because it funds wildlif e programs and manages the nat ional wildlif e refuges that serv e as fish and game habit ats. The Resource Management account in its budget houses operat ions such as v isit or serv ices, law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habit at
conservat ion, and nat ional fish-hat chery operat ions. This account would see a $105 million cut in fiscal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The North American Wetlands C onservation Fund, which provides federal grants to restore wet lands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million, while the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson), which prov ides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million. The Forest Service also faces cuts that would im pair its ability to prov ide American sportsmen with recreation opportunit ies. Its National Forest System account, which would be cut by $129 million, funds priorit ies such as forest restorat ion, which prov ides new places to hunt and fish; planning in order to manage recreation opportunit ies; and an ent ire account
devoted to Recreat ion, Heritage, and Wilderness. In addition, its Forest and Rangeland Research line it em, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development , would be cut by $24 million, and the State and Privat e Forestry account, which prov ides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million. While it is unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potent ial implications of budget cutsthere is litt le doubt that cuts would im pact the hunting and fishing experience that Americans currently enjoy. And cuts of this magnitude could potentially lead to a decline in the quality of wildlif e habitat , fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishing values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deteriorat ion of
visitor facilit ies, fewer educat ion programs, unprocessed hunt ing and access perm its, and the basic disint egrat ion of visitor experiences overallall of which means less revenue. Less fish on your table Americas saltwater fisheries, both commercial and recreat ional, are managed by the [NOAA] Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys National Marine Fisheries Service. Despit e an onerous and costly legal mandate to end overfishing in U.S. waters and set strict science-based annual cat ch limit s in all fisheries beginning in 2011, this services budget has already declined by more than 10 percent from an all- time high of $1 billion in 2010 to $895 million for fiscal year 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys O perat ions, Research, and Facilit ies accountwhich includes funding for day-to-day operat ions of the Nat ional Marine Fisheries
Servicewill be cut by 8.2 percent if sequestration occurs. If the Office of Management and Budget applies that reduct ion equally across all the agencys departments, that would mean a further reduct ion of $73 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut this year. These cuts could have major impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestrat ion cuts end up being distributed, they will mean the agencys fisheries scientist s will have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stock assessments on which cat ch limits are based. If scient ists know less, they will have to be more conservativ e with catch limits to ensure overfishing does not occur. This means fisherm en will be forced to catch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportunit ies, less fish in the
market place, and a loss of revenue to coastal businesses and communit ies. The cuts will also have impacts on jobs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massiv e economic driver in coastal regions. Saltwater anglers spent $19.5 billion in 2009, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreat ional fishing industry was direct ly responsible for more than 300,000 jobs (these figures do not include cost s such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services). This same report found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1 million jobs and more than $116 billion in sales impacts. Members of the House of Representat ives Appropriat ions C ommittee stated in a report on the 2012 budget for the federal government s C ommerce, Justice, and Science account that, Healthy levels of investment in [ fisheries]
scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth. And yet the legislation accompanying that report still slashed more than $200 million from the presidents recommended budget. Sequestration will cut even more. Diminished ocean safety On October 28, amid Hurricane Sandys 30-foot waves and wind gusts of up to 70 miles per hour, the tall ship Bounty began to founder about 90 miles off the North Carolina coast. As the 16 crew members were forced to abandon ship, the U.S. C oast Guard went to work, launching two helicopters into the teeth of the storm. Tragically, the ocean claim ed the lives of the ships captain and one of its crewmembers, but just a few hours after receiv ing the distress call, the 14 other crewmembers were safely on shore. All in a days work.

Despite the Coast Guards high-profile, action-movie-worthy heroics such as the Bounty rescue or the
remarkable efforts to pluck thousands of stranded New Orleans residents from rooftops during and after Hurricane Katrina, the fifth branch of
our armed services largely toils in anonymity. But since the Coast Guard was shifted into the newly

created Department of Homeland Security in the departmental reshuffling following the 9/11 attacks, its suite of missions has increased dramatically. In addition to
carrying out search-and-rescue activities, patrolling our maritime boundaries to prevent narcotics and illegal immigrants smuggling, enforcing fisheries regulations, and
coordinating response to offshore pollution events such as the BP oil spill, one of the services core missions is now protecting our maritime border from threats including
that of a terrorist attack. Sequestration will only reduce the Coast Guards capacity to accomplish all of these tasks effectively. Meanwhile,

the ships the Coast

Guard uses to carry out its vital missions are literally rusting beneath their feet. High Endurance Cutterssuch as the 368-foot

Gallatin, which led the search for the Bountys missing captain in the days after the rescueare on average 43 years old and their age is showing. According to the
Government Accountability Office, the eight Cutters in the Coast Guard fleet together lost 528 operational days in 2011 alone due to unscheduled maintenance issues. The
report went on to state that 10 of the 12 vessels deployed to Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake experienced severe failures of parts or systems, which
diminished their availability to deliver emergency aid and perform medical evacuations. As Shell and other oil companies look to expand oil drilling operations in the Arctic
Ocean, the Coast Guard currently has just one functional icebreaking ship, with no plans to build any more. This is important because the Coast Guard is responsible for
overseeing drilling safety operations, and needs infrastructure like icebreakers in case of a spill or other disaster. By contrast, Russia, which already operates seven
nuclear-powered icebreakers, recently announced plans to build 30 more ships by 2030and three more by 2015. The sequestration process will have significant negative
ramifications for both

the Coast Guards

effort to build new ships to replace their aging fleet and for the services day-to-day operations. The

reductions
will include $247 million from the Operating Expenses account, and $115 million from
deal would slash nearly half a billion dollars from the Coast Guard budget, which Republicans and Democrats alike agree is already too thin. The

the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvementsthe former account pays for Coast Guard personnel and missions, and the latter for the construction of new ships and
aircraft.

These cuts will result in decreased homeland security and maritime safety for all Americans.

Coast Guard funding controversial massive cuts in

funding and no Congressional support
Aviation Week 7-8-2013 U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Aircraft May Fall To
Cuts http://aviationweek.com/awin/us-coast-guard-patrol-aircraft-may-fallcuts DA: 6/9/14

For the U.S. Coast Guard, it is the beginning of the end and not in a good wayas
it eyes a massive proposed cut to its long-struggling recapitalization efforts. And for one major European aerospace
company, EADS, it also could be the second of a one-two punch from Washington this year that challenges its long-running desire to break into

the fifth U.S. armed serviceseemingly always the

last to be considered when it comes to funding and recognitionhas been
the top level of U.S. defense contractors. Since the late 1990s,

struggling to design, buy and deploy a modernized fleet of aircraft, ships and other equipment to meet its wide-ranging mission requirements.

officials appear to be all but abandoning their effort to overhaul the Coast
Guard's aging fleets, proposing to cut a third of the funding for a five-year acquisition program that already was going to support only
two-thirds of the service's missions, which range from homeland defense to fishing enforcement. Worst of all, lawmakers
seem resigned to going along. It is time for the president to tell Congress what missions the Coast Guard will
Now U.S.

no longer conduct, says House Coast Guard and maritime transportation subcommittee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). It is simply
irresponsible to continue to send our servicemen and women out on failing legacy assets commissioned over 50 years ago and expect them to
succeed in their missions. Under the latest iteration of the five-year capital investment plan and its consequences, unveiled piecemeal this
spring with the fiscal 2014 budget request, the service would receive a total of about $5.1 billion in acquisition funding, or around $2.5 billion
less than the roughly $7.6 billion included in the version of the plan issued last year, according to Congressional Research Service (CRS)

This is one of the largest percentage reductions in funding

that I have seen a five-year acquisition account experience from one year to the next in many years, says CRS naval affairs
specialist Ronald O'Rourke. Nevertheless, there has been no change in the Coast Guard's strategic environment since last year that
would suggest a significant reduction in its future missions, he testified June 26 to Hunter's panel. But
calculations.

money was always an issue. To meet the existing plan, before the latest proposal, the Coast Guard needs about $2 billion in acquisition
funding every year, according to its commandant, Adm. Robert Papp. The latest five-year plan averages $1.02 billion per year, compared to
$1.53 billion per year under last year's version.

Coast Guard funding links no constituency to support

increases
David Helvarg is President of the Blue Frontier Campaign (An awardwinning journalist, he produced more than 40 documentaries for PBS, The
Discovery Channel, and others. 10-24-2013 The Coast Guard Still Needs
Rescuing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-helvarg/the-coast-guard-stillneeds-rescuing_b_4146760.html DA: 6/9/14
you'd think the Coast Guard would have proved its usefulness
Instead
its essential personnel still face
unprecedented funding cuts
the
Coast Guard is the only one not located in the pork-laden
Department of Defense but living on far thinner gruel
After 223 years
nation.

to the

, even after the government shutdown,

and growing demands that threaten their ability to operate. Although one of the nation's five armed services,

provided by a series of foster agencies including,

since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security. The House Appropriations Committee recently complained about the Coast Guard's "egregious" 2014 funding cuts, castigating DHS's budget for eliminating
essential functions without suggesting an end to the across-the-board budget sequester that's doing equal harm.

The Coast Guard is now facing a

5 percent budget cut even as sequestration costs it an additional 5

percent.

Plans to modernize its mostly obsolete fleet are at "dead ahead slow." Given its vast duties on the ocean, Great Lakes and rivers -- including Search And Rescue (saving an average of 10

people a day), port security, oil spill response, drug and migrant interdiction, ship inspections, fisheries enforcement, etc. -- the public interest might better be served by doubling their $10 billion budget. After all,
Republican senators' asking price for immigration reform remains $30 billion for increased border security, including a "surge" of 20,000 new border agents at a time when illegal crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border
are at a 40-year low. Instead of expanding the Border Patrol they might consider adding those new bodies to the 43,000 active-duty men and women who secure our maritime borders: the Atlantic, Pacific,
Caribbean, Gulf, Great Lakes and Arctic Ocean, only not so much nowadays with Coast Guard offshore patrols down 15 percent due to budget cuts.

advocates in Washington the service

with less
,

Without strong
Do more

long ago learned to internalize its lack of support by promising to "

." Its leadership even came to believe that giving taxpayers more "bang for the buck" might win them support from politicians who complain about government waste. What "doing more

with less" actually got them is less. A few examples: In 1994, the Clinton administration called for "streamlining" of the federal government and asked agencies to propose ways to operate with a 10 percent
reduction in force. While other agencies used bureaucratic delays to avoid the cuts the Coast Guard voluntarily reduced its personnel by 12 percent, laying off 4,000 people. Still, on 9/11 they managed to coordinate
the waterborne evacuation of half a million people from lower Manhattan. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 the Coast Guard proved to be the only part of government functioning in New Orleans and along
the Gulf Coast, rescuing over 33,000 people that week. Congress and the Bush White House gave them no budget boost. The stress of being under-resourced became apparent during the BP oil disaster in 2010
when so many Coast Guard resources were sent to the Gulf that oversight of major American ports was left in the hands of junior offices and offshore drug smuggling and illegal fishing spiked. In 2011 the Coast
Guard led U.S. forces into Haiti following that nation's devastating earthquake but ten of the twelve aging Cutters sent there suffered breakdowns including two that required emergency repairs and one that had to
be dry docked. Luckily by the time Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012 the federal disaster response system had been fixed so that the Coast Guard didn't have to act alone. The service is now in the process of replacing
its aged high seas ships with eight modern National Security Cutters. Still, last year the Obama administration proposed cutting the number from eight to six, claiming the Navy could pick up the slack. The newest
federal budget has reinstated the seventh ship while Congress and the White House argue over the eighth. Meanwhile the Navy, with 16 times the Coast Guard's budget, is on track to acquire 20 Littoral (coastal)
Warfare ships of the same size and price and is lobbying for 32 more. The Navy's R&D budget is actually larger than the Coast Guard's entire budget. Yet the Coast Guard keeps getting new assignments like
protecting America's newest blue water coast emerging with the melting ice of the Arctic. While recommissioning an icebreaker from the 1970s Congress has failed to prioritize new icebreakers, leaving the service
with a total of two plus one on the Great Lakes. Nor has new money been allocated for the additional people, boats and aircraft needed to operate at the top of the world. As a result Coast Guard Commandant
Admiral Robert Papp recently announced that for at least the next 10 years the Coast Guard will not open a sector (area) station in Barrow, Alaska, on the north slope but continue to operate in the Arctic by sending
one of its National Security Cutters -- at present there are only three in operation -- up to the ice each summer. That will seriously cut into its anti-drug and pirate fishing patrols. In response to budget cuts and the
sequester Admiral Papp has admitted the service has passed the point of diminishing returns, pointing out that, for example, it is now interdicting fewer multi-ton drug shipments (the Coast Guard captures more
cocaine than the DEA, FBI and all state and local law enforcement combined). But before his revelation had time to sink in he defaulted to the service's traditional position of making due, telling a congressional
committee this spring, "We will make the best use of the resources you provide to safely and efficiently conduct operations in the area of greatest risk to the nation." What he might have said is, "The Coast Guard
can no longer remain a world-class maritime law-enforcement agency and armed service given the inadequate resources you now provide." That is, he could have sounded more like the heads of the other Armed

The Coast
Guard is the only armed service that actually has no fat to cut. In fact
it is being starved of lean muscle. And no one seems to care
Services when they testified with great theatricality about the impact of the sequester on them. But in Admiral Papp's case he'd have the added advantage of telling the truth.

enough to rescue them.

UNESCO
Congress opposes UNESCO banned contributions
John Daly, freelance consultant working on issues of technology and science
for developing countries for more than a decade, formerly director of the
Office of Research at USAID, 2-26-2014
http://stconsultant.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-oceans-are-in-trouble-iscongress.html DA: 6/4/14 Edited for gendered language

The oceans are vitally important to [hu]mankind. The oceanic environment is deteriorating, and international cooperation

UNESCO could facilitate some of that cooperation, but the U.S.

Congress has blocked U.S. funding for UNESCO. The Senate has more
than a dozen treaties awaiting ratification, some submitted more
than 30 years ago. ABOUT 3 billion people live within 100 miles (160km) of the sea, a number that could
is vital to its protection.

double in the next decade as humans flock to coastal cities like gulls. The oceans produce $3 trillion of goods and services
each year and untold value for the Earths ecology. Life could not exist without these vast water reservesand, if
anything, they are becoming even more important to humans than before. The Economist This article in The Economist
indicates that the oceans are deteriorating because we haven't managed to develop common property institutions that
work to protect them. Fisheries are being over exploited. Large areas are oxygen depleted and dead. Coral reefs are in
trouble. Acidification of ocean waters is occurring and likely to become dangerous. Further treats are in view from off shore
drilling and deep sea mining. Climate change may threaten the ocean currents, with profound consequences. UNESCO is
the international agency leading in ocean science, and it hosts the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Its
World Heritage Center implements the World Heritage Convention; it has declared Papahnaumokukea, an oceanic World

The United States has

not paid its assessed contributions to UNESCO for more than two
years, and is banned by the Congress from any funding for the
Organization.
Heritage site, accepting the U.S. plan for its protection and conservation of its resources.

NOAA
NOAA funding costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes
intense opposition and pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime
Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budge
t+Outlook+for+Maritime+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request
arrived
in the midst of
budget
by the House

for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this

year. The President's budget

in Congress

passed

two

very different views of the

of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective

appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten
years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget
request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly
70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas,
including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime
Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program;
$81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of
managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference
cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or
5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast
Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded
under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated
National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for consolidating the grants into one block
grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion,
an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program
has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The

is likely
to pass
bills
vastly different from the White House's request
Members
have
questioned whether funding can be provided for the
NOAA
It
also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular
order,
this is not likely to happen in the near term
The government keeps limping along with cuts
from sequester delays in Congressional approval for spending plans,
and uncertainties in the outcome
The House and Senate will
have to debate their respective
visions
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
appropriation

The House

of Representatives

that are

. In fact,

of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee,
full

Commerce/

already

budgets.

i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-

MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but

except for defense agencies

where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached.

,

for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are

delayed.

once again

for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a

fight over offsetting budget cuts.

NOAA funding is a heavy lift causes Congressional

controversy
Jeff Mervis reports on science policy in the United States and around the
world. He's covered science policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at
Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill DA: 6/11/14

U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September.

The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an

Dickering over the National Oceanoic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)

2013 budget caused plenty of sturm and drang over the past year. But the final
overall amount they can spend.

outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,

Other programs, however, will still feel pain.

The largest, including its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and the National Marine Fisheries Service,
are likely to end up with flat or slightly reduced budgets. And at least one research-related
program will cease to exist. Congress endorsed a controversial plan to shut down NOAA's National Undersea
and gives the agency greater spending flexibility for some programs.

Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.

Courts

Court Decisions Controversial

Court decisions are politicizedcomparatively outweighs
their defense
Hamilton, Stanford J.D. Candidate, 12
[Eric, 8/30/12, Politicizing the Supreme Court, 65 Stanford Law
Review 35, http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/politicizingsupreme-court, AC]
To state the obvious, Americans do not trust the federal
government, and that includes the Supreme Court. Americans
believe politics played too great a role in the recent health care
cases by a greater than two-to-one margin.[1] Only thirty-seven
percent of Americans express more than some confidence in the
Supreme Court.[2]Academics continue to debate how much politics
actually influences the Court, but Americans are excessively
skeptical. They do not know that almost half of the cases this Term were
decided unanimously, and the Justices voting pattern split by the political
party of the president to whom they owe their appointment in fewer than
seven percent of cases.[3] Why the mistrust? When the Court is frontpage, above-the-fold news after the rare landmark decision or
during infrequent U.S. Senate confirmation proceedings, political
rhetoric from the President and Congress drowns out the Court.
Public perceptions of the Court are shaped by politicians arguments
for or against the ruling or the nominee, which usually fall along
partisan lines and sometimes are based on misleading premises that ignore
the Courts special, nonpolitical responsibilities.
The Framers of the Constitution designed a uniquely independent Supreme
Court that would safeguard the Constitution. They feared that the political
branches might be able to overwhelm the Court by turning the public against
the Court and that the Constitutions strict boundaries on congressional
power would give way. As evidenced in the health care cases,
politicians across the ideological spectrum have played into some of
the Framers fears for the Constitution by politicizing the decision
and erasing the distinction between the Courts holding and the
policy merits of the heath care law. Paradoxically, many of the elected
officials who proudly campaign under the battle cry of saving our
Constitution endanger the Court and the Constitution with their bombast.
Politicization of the Supreme Court causes the American public to
lose faith in the Court, and when public confidence in the Court is
low, the political branches are well positioned to disrupt the
constitutional balance of power between the judiciary and the
political branches.

Media spin ensures politicizationthe court has no

popular influence
Hamilton, Stanford J.D. Candidate, 12

[Eric, 8/30/12, Politicizing the Supreme Court, 65 Stanford Law

Review 35, http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/politicizingsupreme-court, AC]
Judges lack clear defenses. Judges would risk their credibility if they
shouted back at the President, appeared on the Sunday morning talk
shows, or held a press conference after a decision. Unlike speeches
from members of Congress and the President, Supreme Court
proceedings are difficult to follow without legal training. The media
coverage of the Supreme Court can be incomplete or inaccurate. FOX
News and CNN famously misunderstood Chief Justice Roberts oral
opinion and misreported that the individual mandate had been invalidated.
The publicly available audio recordings of oral arguments contribute
little to public understanding of the Court. Even before the decision,
the Republican Party doctored audio clips of Solicitor General Don
Verrilli coughing and pausing during oral argument to suggest in an
ad suggesting that the health care law was indefensible.[17]

Congress gets the blame for unpopular judicial decisions

Canon, Kentucky Political Science Professor and Johnson,
Oklahoma Appellate Judge, 99
[Bradley C and Charles A, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact,
116-117, AC]
More than any other public agency, Congress tends to be the focal point
for public reaction to judicial policies. As a political body, Congress
cannot ignore any sizable or prominent groups of constituents. Some
groups become especially agitated when they are unhappy with
some judicial decision or doctrine, and they make their dissatisfaction
known to members of Congress. If the pressure is great enough and is not
counterbalanced by pressure from groups that support the judicial policy,
Congress will, if feasible, take action. At the very least, numerous members of
Congress will score political points by showing righteous indignation on behalf
of the disaffected groups.

Supreme Court decisions influence the agenda

Flemming, Texas A&M Polysci Professor, et al., 97
[Roy B., John Bohte, UW-Milwaukee Polysci Professor, and B. Dan Wood,
Texas A&M Polysci Professor, Oct 1997, One Voice Among Many: The
Supreme Courts Influence on Attentiveness to Issues in the United
States 1947-92, American Journal of Political Science, 41: 4, 12241250, http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/PLSC541_Fall06/Flemming
%20Bohte%20and%20Wood%20AJPS%201997.pdf, AC]
In this study we focus on the United States Supreme Court as a bellwether of
systemic attention to policy issues. In Federalist 78, Hamilton offered his by
now famous and often repeated opinion that the Court would be "the least
dangerous branch." Without the power of the sword or purse at its disposal,

the Court's authority in American politics would ultimately depend on its

ability to persuade. The Supreme Court, however, may be more effective
in drawing attention to issues and identifying problems than in
changing preferences about them (cf. Franklin and Kosaki 1989; Hoekstra
1995). The judicial venue may increase issue visibility and legitimacy
for issue advocates. As with other United States political institutions,
Supreme Court decisions confer and remove benefits, both material
and symbolic, and can under some circumstances rearrange the
distribution of political influence. When decisions rearrange political
benefits and influence, the response is predictably a continuation of
conflict. Decisions that rearrange political benefits or influence in the
extreme, as for example in cases involving school desegregation, flagburning, or public school prayer, often expand the scope of conflict by
activating new groups and accentuating old rivalries. These processes
may, in turn, draw other political institutions into the fray, as well as
amplify both public and media attention. Thus, under certain
circumstances he Supreme Court may profoundly affect the agenda
setting process in the United States, and in doing so constitute an
institutional source of change in American public policy and politics.

The public hates Supreme Court decisions

Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, 7/6/14

[Brad, 7/6/14, Christian Science Monitor, Confidence in the presidency,

Congress, and the Supreme Court all plummets ,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0706/Confidence-in-thepresidency-Congress-and-the-Supreme-Court-all-plummets-video, accessed
7/13/14, AC]
At least according to Gallup, which reported recently that Americans'
confidence in all three branches of the US government has fallen,
reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30 percent) and Congress
(7 percent), and a six-year low for the presidency (29 percent). The
presidency had the largest drop of the three branches this year, down seven
percentage points from its previous rating of 36 percent.
Since June 2013, confidence has fallen seven points for the presidency,
four points for the Supreme Court, and three points for Congress, Gallup
reported, based on a poll taken in early June. Confidence in each of the three
branches of government had already fallen from 2012 to 2013.
Why this lack of confidence in government?
Congressional gridlock with no sign of compromise as leaders and would-be
leaders talk past one another, seeming to place debating points above
legislative accomplishment.
A Supreme Court that seems perpetually divided along a
conservative/liberal axis, as it was this past week on cases related to
birth control.

AT No Perception of the Court

Contradicted by 1ACif aff is so important than people
will noticealso if they win this argument it means they
dont get any perception internal links
Turncourt action brings issues greater visibilityspecific
to environment
Carlarne, Ohio State Law Professor, 8
[Cinnamon P., 7/1/2008, Notes From a Climate Change PressureCooker: Sub-Federal Attempts at Transformation Meet National
Resistance in the USA, 40 Connecticut Law Review 1351,
http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1828&context=law_facpub, AC]
In the United States, state and local climate change policies are
creating momentum for political change. These political efforts,
however, are dispersed and varied, making it difficult to bring about rapid
federal responses. One traditional avenue for directly engaging the
United States federal government in areas of environmental
protection where attention lags is through the judiciary. Judicial
actions can be directly addressed or appealed to the federal courts. Judicial
challenges provide a mechanism for forcing an issue directly onto
the political agenda that otherwise might remain off the federal
radar indefinitely.135
Increasingly, litigation is seen as an avenue for change in the
context of climate change policy. 136 More than a dozen lawsuits related
to global climate change "currently sit on the dockets of our federal and state
courts.' 37 In the sections that follow, this Article reviews several
specific cases-among many-where petitioners are using the judiciary
in new and creative ways to require public and private individuals to
respond to climate change.

AT Courts Shield from Backlash

Politicans backlash against unpopular decisionsempirics
prove
Whittington, Princeton Politics Professor, 5
[Keith E., November 2005, "Interpose Your Friendly Hand": Political
Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States
Supreme Court, The American Political Science Reveiw, 99:4, p. 583596, https://stgapgov.pbworks.com/f/Interpose.pdf, AC]
At other times, the justices might well act on their own
constitutional understandings even when those understandings are
not shared by political leaders or when their expression is not
desired. The political logic for such instances of unfriendly and
unwelcome judicial review will have to be rather different from those
described here. If the obstruction is relatively minor, as when the Court
struck down Theodore Roosevelt's Employers' Liability Act as being drafted
too broadly while indicating that the law's aims were constitution- ally
legitimate, then the Court's accumulated political capital might encourage
leaders to simply yield to or work around the Court's rules (Employers'
Liability Cases 1907; Pickerill 2004). If the obstruction is more serious, as
when the Hughes Court blocked major com- ponents of the New Deal
or when the early Warren Court extended the constitutional
protections of suspected Communists, then the political reaction
might be more severe and the strength of the Court's diffuse
support might be tested. Not all episodes of judicial review take the
collaborative form described here. The possibility of friendly judicial review,
however, gives political leaders reason not only to tolerate the Court when it
behaves in politically difficult ways but also to actively support the Court and
help build a reservoir of public goodwill when it behaves in politically useful
ways (Whittington Forthcoming).

Link Turns Case

Politics Link Turns Case

The aff puts the cart before the horse lack of public
support undermines exploration
Lang, Co-Founder OpenROV, 13

[David, OpenROV is an underwater vehicle company, 2013, Aquarium of the

Pacific, Aquatic Forum, From Exploration to Engagement,
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf,
page 36 accessed 6/29/14 CK]
The

solutions to the challenging issues facing our oceans-global warming,

the right combination of strong science,
informed policy, and skilled engineering. However, there is one
challenge (indeed, the grandest ocean challenge) that doesnt fit
that formula: public engagement. Solving the ocean challenges
require an engaged and supportive public. A public that understands
what is at stake, and can draw a clear connection between ocean
health and the health of their families and communities . Unfortunately,
the same tactics needed to address the pressing ocean issues also
work to cognitively erase that public connection with the ocean. The
immensity of the ocean and its corresponding challenges create a
willful blindness among the public-its just too overwhelming to
comprehend, so people stop trying. The most effective way to build an engaged and
informed public is just the opposite. Instead of highlighting the problems, we
need now more than ever to use a positive approach to show whats
wonderful about our oceans. We need to strengthen the public
connection through positive association. From a positive
perspective, theres no better tactic than ocean exploration. It taps
into everything thats awe-inspiring about the ocean: its vastness,
its mystery, its wonder. But it also taps into everything thats awe-inspiring about our
humanity: our curiosity, our ingenuity, our wonder. Public engagement is the highest
imperative-every other issue is derivative. People will only protect
and pursue something in their field of awareness. We need a direct
emotional connection. Ocean exploration gives us the power to tell that
acidification, over-fishing-require

story.

Link Turns Case

Link alone turns case Partisan political attacks derail
implementation and funding
Chasis 12 (Sarah, New Report Shows Obstructionist Politics Harming

Ocean Management, June 6,

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/schasis/new_report_shows_obstructionis.ht
ml)
Despite these gains, the National Ocean Policy has a long way to go,
especially with obstructionist politics standing in its way. As JOCIs
report card emphasizes, Congressional attacks on the National Ocean
Policy threaten to hurt its effectiveness and contribute to the bad
grade given for national- level implementation.
In the most recent round of partisan attacks on this common-sense
policy, Republican leaders in Congress are trying to gut the National
Ocean Policy all together.
Just last month, House Republicans passed through an amendment to a
critical government spending bill, prohibiting any federal funding for
National Ocean Policy efforts. With this misguided vote, leaders of the
House aimed to stop agencies from working together to address
critical problems, like contaminated beachwater, marine debris, loss of
valuable coastal habitat, and future oil spills like the 2010 disaster in the Gulf
of Mexico. The Joint Ocean Commission rightfully urges Congress to reject
such efforts to restrict or prohibit funds from being used to implement the
National Ocean Policy.
Now our senators have the chance to stand up for smart ocean management
when a companion bill comes to the floor of the Senate as early as this
month.
We cant afford to let backdoor attacks jeopardize the future of our
oceans. From coast to coastand everywhere in betweenwe depend on
our ocean resources for food, jobs, and recreation. Its time for Congress to
step above the partisan bickering, get serious about protecting the health of
our oceans, and move the National Ocean Policy forward.

Link Turns Climate Leadership

Link alone turns climate leadership
Schoen 12 Associate in World Resource Institutes Climate and Energy Program

[Luke Schoen
(Holds a Masters degree in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University), CLEAN TECHS RISE, PART I: Will the U.S. and China Reap the Mutual Benefits?, ChinaFAQs
Issue Brief, April 2012
OOInnovation Encouraging private investment in research and development

Remaining a
global leader in clean energy technology, will require continual development
and commercialization of new technologies. U.S. businesses have long called for a national energy

A predictable and long-term clean energy policy

would help reassure innovators and venture capitalists that their
efforts will pay off.53 Federal support for research, development, and deployment Initiatives
innovation strategy.52

such as the Department of Energys Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) can fill a gap
in funding game-changing technologies that may appear too risky for private investors, but with the
potential to generate large economic and environmental returns if successful. OOFederal Executive branch

New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) that would limit emissions from new power plants to no more
than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. These standards
would reinforce trends toward low-carbon energy sources, and give
businesses greater certainty about future investments in the energy
action The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed

sector.54 National Vehicle rules Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Executive branch can
tighten national fuel standards to improve fuel economy for road, marine, and airborne vehicles. Proposals
for further tightening are pending.55

Link Turns International Perception

Link alone turns international perception
Winik 91 (Jay, Senior Research Fellow, Natl Defense U, Washington Quarterly, Autumn, via
InformaWorld)

The U.S. stake in speaking and acting with one voice is enormous. Two
former secretaries of state, themselves of different political parties and holding different political ideologies, have warned: The American national purpose
must at some point be fixed. If it is redefined-or even subject to red e fi nit ion-w i t h every change in Ad ministration in Wash i
ng t on, the United States risks becoming a factor of inconstancy in the world. . . . Other nations-friend or adversary-unable to gear their policies to American steadiness
will go their own way, dooming the United States to growing irrelevancy. The urgent need for creating a new bipartisanship is also an acknowledgment of the changed
international system. In the early 1950s, the United States produced 52 percent of the world's gross national prodhct. It enjoyed a nuclear monopoly and was without
question the world's preponderant power militarily. The past 40 years, however, have witnessed a relative decline in U.S. wealth, dictating that the United States can no
longer simply ovenvhelm any problem with its vast national resources. Economic realities have also changed domestic political realities, forcing the country to make very
real choices benveen guns and butter and to establish its priorities. Indeed, in the absence of a bipartisan consensus on the role of the United States in the world, public
sentiment- including among certain foreign policy elites-is already calling for the United States to turn inward. The fact is, however, that the twilight of the Cold War
actually creates a greater need for bipartisanship as the United States confronts a more anarchical international system. The transition of the posnvar blocs from EastWest bipolarity to multipolarity will significantly alter the structure of the international arena, making conflict more, not less, likely. With the passage of time, Japan and a
reunited Germany will almost certainly emerge as more assertive and independent actors pursuing their own national interests. China will continue to be a major player on
the world stage and will have great sway over world events. Furthermore, as the two superpowers continue on the path of arms control and scale down their military
efforts, as anticipated, the gap between their capabilities and those of rising powers will diminish significantly. Additionally, by the year 2000, at least a handful of new

greater numbers of countries,

including rogue states that do not adhere to or respect traditional standards of
deterrence, will possess crude but nonetheless similarly daunting weapons. These
countries will possess long-range delivery systems and weapons of mass destruction, and

countries will be capable of terrorizing other states or of sowing general chaos in the international system. The result will be a new interna- tional system characterized by
highly dynamic interaction and, over time, shifting alliances and interests more akin to the strife-ridden European balance of power system than the twentieth- century

Although the risk of cataclysmic

nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union is at its
lowest point in history and is likely to remain so, it is far from
certain that this new international structure will be more stable than
the one it replaces. Fixed lines between allies and adversaries will blur, and alliances will shift with greater regularity across different issues.
system, in which peace has been enforced by the nuclear balance of terror between the two superpowers.

At the same time, these changes will occur against the backdrop of a Soviet Union in decay, itself a potential cause of vast instability; the existence of nuclear weapons;

, the world
may once again be made safe for jolly little wars, the difference
this time being the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There are fewand rising nationalistic, religious, and ethnic strife stretching from Europe to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. To use Kaiser \\ilhelms words

and really no-parallels in history to serve as a model or paradigm for guiding U.S. policymakers in an international setting of this kind. Thus, at a time when bipartisanship
is at its lowest ebb, U.S. policymakers are now being challenged in more ways intellectually, politically, diplomatically, and militarily than during the past 40 years. The
United States does have the resources to continue to play a major world role and to deal with its domestic problems at the same time, although admittedly those resources
are now constrained. In addition, when one looks at military, economic, and even cultural factors, the United States has no challenger to its position as the preeminent
world power should it choose this role. The problem for the United States is clearly not that epitomized by the apocalyptic cries of the decline school as portrayed by Paul
Kennedy-that is, decline following upon imperial over~tretch.~ Rather, the problem the United States faces is an international system in flux, characterized by the
diffusion of military capabilities and power abroad, all of which will create far more complex, nuanced, and unpredictable challenges. In the future, deterrence of conflict
will be more difficult, and U.S. defense planners and diplomats will have to address the capabilities and intentions of a wide array of actors far beyond that of the Soviet
Union alone. Threats to U.S. interests and those of its allies will often appear ambiguous, falling in the greyer areas of not war, not peace. Rather than following the well-

, the U.S. political system will

have to react to the varied crises of the new world order. Even when working at its
smoothest, it will have difficulty doing so effectively . Small-scale Sarajevos and Munichs may well be the
norm, and their prevention or containment will require a cohesive
nation, acting with a clear and consistent voice in the international arena, which will only happen if a new bipartisanship is forged. Thus, it is demonstrably clear
defined and clearly understood rules of the road that largely governed U.S.Soviet relations

Friends and foes

alike, watching U.S. indecision at home, will not see the United States as a credible negotiating
partner, ally, or deterrent against wanton aggression. This is a recipe for
increased chaos, anarchy, and strife on the world scene. The appeal, then, to recreate anew as the hallmark of U.S. efforts
that, in the absence of bipartisanship, dealing with the new international system will be difficult at best and at times next to impossible.

abroad the predictability and resolve that can only come from bipartisanship at home is as critical as during the perilous days following World War II.

Link Turns Trade Leadership

Link turns case sends mixed message emboldening
protectionism policy alone isnt enough rhetoric
matters
Okezie, 10
Okezie Chukwumerije, Professor of Law, Thurgood Marshall School of Law,
Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas, 5/19/10,
http://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Volume%2016.1/Chukwumerije
%20MACRO.pdf
This article evaluates the implications of the emerging trade policy of the Obama administration. The
article begins by sketching a picture of the administrations trade-related initiatives and situating them in
the context of the trade objectives articulated by the president during the last presidential election. The
article then examines the trade aspects of the administrations stimulus and economic recovery programs.
It focuses on their consistency with U.S. international trade obligations and with the long-standing
commitment of the United States to a free and open multilateral trading system. The article further

policy and political considerations that would affect the

implementation of the trade-related aspects of the administrations
environmental and labor protection initiatives. The article concludes with the caution that Obamas
mixed messages on trade, measured by his rhetoric and policies, are
detrimental to the pro-trade reputation of the United States and might
embolden protectionists, both within and outside the United States.
explores the

Undermines US trade leadership

Economist, 08 (10/8)
Both the risks of this new protectionism and the odds of it being countered depend heavily on the relationship between
America and the biggest emerging economies. As the Doha malaise has shown, active American leadership, although no

the politics of trade has become

increasingly difficult in America, compromising the countrys ability to
take the lead. Support for more open markets is weaker than almost
anywhere else in the world. According to this year?s Pew Global Attitudes
Survey, only 53% of Americans think trade is good for their country , down
from 78% in 2002. Several other surveys in America suggest that supporters
have become a minority. In other countries support is far higher. Some 87% of Chinese and 90% of Indians
longer sufficient, is still necessary for multilateral progress. Yet

say trade is good for their country, along with 71% of Japanese, 77% of Britons, 82% of French and 89% of Spaniards.

AT

Link Booster Controversy Drains PC

Controversial policies drain political capital
Burke, University of Vermont political science professor, 9
(John P., Presidential Studies Quarterly 39.3 (Sept 2009), The Contemporary
Presidency: The Obama Presidential Transition: An Early Assessment, p574
(31). Academic One; accessed 7-15-10)
President Obama signaled his intention to make a clean break from
the unpopular Bush presidency with his executive orders and early policy
and budget proposals. At the same time, he also sought to tamp down public
expectations for quick results on the economy. Early--and ambitious--actions
were taken, but as he cautioned in his inaugural address, "the challenges we
face are real" and they "will not be met easily or in a short span of time." His
initial political capital seemed high.
But was the right course of action chosen? The decision was made to
embrace a broad range of policy reforms, not just to focus on the
economy. Moreover, it was a controversial agenda. His early efforts
to gain bipartisan support in Congress--much like those of his
predecessors--seem largely for naught and forced the administration
to rely on narrow partisan majorities. The question that remains is
whether his political capital, both in Congress and with the public,
will bring him legislative--and ultimately policy--success. Good
transition planning is propitious, but it offers no guarantees. Still, without it,
political and policy disaster likely awaits. So far, President Obama seems
to reside largely on the positive side of the equation. But what the
future might portend remains another matter.

Unpopular action ensures backlash against the president

politicians are emboldened when they smell blood in the
water
Stolberg, New York Times, 3
(Sheryl Gay, 9-13-3, New York Times, Democrats Find Some Traction on
Capitol Hill, p. A1, Lexis)
"A presidential speech, instead of boosting support, is followed by a
seven-point drop and suddenly the atmosphere changes," said
Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who follows
Congress. "Republicans, who have been reluctant to get off the
reservation, now say, 'Wait just one minute.' And Democrats have all
the more reason to be unified." Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at
Rutgers University, agreed. "Any sign of weakness out of the White
House is going to be perceived by the president's allies in Congress
as an opportunity to act a little bit more like free spirits, and on the
part of the opposition to be more aggressive," Professor Baker said.
"It's the blood-in-the-water syndrome."

AT: Plan Popular with Public

Public support doesnt matter politicians are greedy
Knott, University of Southern California School of Policy,
Planning and Development professor, 12
(Jack H., March, Presidential Studies Quarterly, The President,
Congress, and the Financial Crisis: Ideology and Moral Hazard in
Economic Governance, p. 82, YGS)
How was it possible that senior economic officials in the presidents
administration
and prior administrations did not see this crisis developing or pursue policies
to avert
it? The basic argument of the article is that the system for governing the
marketthe
institutions, rules, regulations, and personnel practices that shape the way
the market
operatesis central to understanding the development of and failure to
anticipate the
financial crisis. In developing this argument, the article focuses on the role of
the president
in interactions with the Congress, economic advisors, and the independent
regulatory
agencies. Over the course of three decades leading up to the financial crisis,
the give and take
of macroeconomic ideas representing different economic interests
and professional views
converged into a common set of policy preferences and ideology
across political parties, the
houses of Congress, the president, and professional experts.
Reinforcing this development
was a powerful political moral hazarda condition in which public
officials and private
interests had strong incentives to take actions mutually beneficial to
them but adverse
to the overall economy and the interests of the general publicthat
led to a decline
in institutional checks and balances in economic regulation. The system of
economic
governance thus failed to function as envisioned, and thereby, contributed to
the crisis.

AT: No Blame
Zero sum nature of politics ensures president is assigned
political blame
Fitts, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania
Law School, 96
(Michael, The Paradox of Power in the Modern State, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, January, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827, Lexis, accessed 78-09, AB)
To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened
visibility about what he says and does and is led to make
increasingly specific statements about who should win and who
should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control
the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to
have a position on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the
baseball strike, and the newest EPA regulations, the list is infinite. Perhaps in
response to these pressures, each modern president has made more
speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton
giving three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. In
such circumstances, the president is far less able to exercise agenda
control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent
positions. The well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize
the strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by
turning issues into zero-sum games.

Presidency is the focal point of politics president gets

the credit or the blame
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and
International Studies professor, 4
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 80)
Given the popular image of presidential power, presidents receive
credit when things are perceived as going well and are blamed when
things go badly. Unfortunately, American politics and the policy process are
incredibly complex and beyond considerable presidential control. With so
many complex issues and problems to address the debt problem,
the economy, energy, welfare, education, the environment, foreign
policy this is a very demanding time to be president. As long as
presidential promises and public expectations remain high, the
presidents job becomes virtually an impossible task. Should success
occur, given the lack of presidential power, it is probably not by the
presidents own design. Nonetheless, the president the person perceived to
be the leader of the country will be rewarded in terms of public prestige,
greater power, and reelection (for him or his successor). However, if the
president is perceived as unsuccessful a failure this results not
only in a weakened president but one the public wants replaced ,

creating the opportunity to challenge an incumbent president or his

heir as presidential nominee.

AT: Plan Not Perceived

Salience ensures a link policies that are salient with the
public receive congressional scrutiny
Rosati, University of South Carolina Government and
International Studies professor, 04
(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 309-11)
The third pattern to consider is that Congress is the ultimate political
body within the U.S. government. Members of Congress are
political animals who are preoccupied with their institutional
status and power, their electoral security, and how they are
perceived within and beyond the Washington beltway. They tend to
be obsessed with reelection and are constantly soliciting funds from
private contributors for reelection campaigns. A preoccupation with
reelection also makes them overly sensitive to public perceptions ,
political support, political trends, and their public images. If the
public and their constituents are interested in an issue and have
staked out a position, members of Congress tend to reflect the
dominant public mood. If the public is uninterested, members of Congress
have more freedom of action; yet they are constantly pressured by the
president, executive agencies, congressional colleagues, special
interest groups, and their constituents.

AT: Floating Different

Floating nuclear magnifies nuclear concerns- doesnt
solve them
Wellock 13 (Thomas Wellock, NRC Historian, Waves of Uncertainty: The
Demise of the Floating Reactor Concept (Part II), http://public-blog.nrcgateway.gov/2013/09/26/waves-of-uncertainty-the-demise-of-the-floatingreactor-concept-part-ii/, September 26, 2013)

Offshore Power Systems, apparently, did not appreciate that putting land-based reactors out to sea was

Concerns about ship

collisions, off-shore fishing grounds, barge sinking and the challenge of creating a
new regulatory process for floating reactors were just some of the unique
issues facing regulators. Even the trade press raised concerns. Nuclear News worried
about the incredibly tangled mass of overlapping jurisdictions,
state, national, and international law, inter-agency authority that
bound to raise new safety, environmental and regulatory questions.

included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978
GAO report. Events conspired to worsen OPSs prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made
construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG
postponed delivery of the first floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of
the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida
Congressional delegation asked the federal government to purchase four plants. But, the prospect of
bailing out OPS did not appeal to officials in the Ford Administration. The purchase proposal died.

Floating reactors did not solve regulatory or political problems . The

production facility in Jacksonville needed an NRC manufacturing license. There
were so many technical and regulatory uncertainties that the
licensing review ran three years behind schedule . A 1978 report from the U.S.
General Accounting Office criticized the NRC for what it believed was an incomplete safety review,
particularly for not accounting for impacts on the ocean ecosystem during an accident where a melting

Local and state opposition to the

plant was intense. Nearby counties voted in non-binding referendums 2 to 1 against the Atlantic
reactor core broke through the bottom of the barge.

Generating Station, and the New Jersey legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over
to PSEG. Westinghouse held out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didnt. In late 1978, the utility announced
it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was the only reason for the
cancellations. We simply will not need these units in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted.

Others blamed excessive regulation. In March 1979, John OLeary, a Department of

Energy deputy secretary, provided to the White House a grimeven alarming
report, as one staffer said, that the NRC delays with the OPS license were
symptomatic of a larger problem. It has become impossible to build
energy plants in America OLeary said, due to excessive environmental
regulations and an indecisive bureaucracy. Environmental laws, OLeary
complained, had created a chain of hurdles which effectively kill energy
projects and damage to the nations economy. He wanted presidential action. Drawing from a 1978
GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events rendered OLearys plea for action moot. Two and a
half weeks later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, ending any hope of an imminent industry
rebound. The accident raised anew questions about a core melt accident and further delayed the
manufacturing license. The NRC did not issue a license until 1982. In 1984, Westinghouse formally
abandoned the OPS enterprise, dismantled the Jacksonville facility, and sold its huge crane to China.

Going to sea, OPS discovered, did not allow it to escape the problems that
beset nuclear power. A novel technological solution could not overcome public distrust and
economic, technical and regulatory uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.

AT: Nuclear Lobby Powerful

The nuclear lobby has no influence only a risk of a turn
Hopf 12 (Jim, senior nuclear engineer, 20 years of experience in shielding
and criticality analysis, regular contributor to ANS nuclear caf [The Party
Platforms on Energy And Nuclear, September 18th,
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/09/18/the-party-platforms-on-energy-andnuclear/, September 18, 2012)
My general view is that the Republicans primarily support fossil fuels while the Democrats primarily

Neither party supports

nuclear to any significant degree. This is due to a profound lack of
influence in Washington by the nuclear industry, compared to other
energy industries. Recently, some have tried to suggest that the
industry (Exelon Corp., specifically) has had significant influence with Obama,
due to campaign contributions and its presence in Illinois. This view is absurd.
Heres a question: What is the ONLY major energy source that was NOT
mentioned at all in Obamas Democratic convention speech? He (the Democratic
candidate) even made brief mention of clean coal, but didnt mention nuclear at all. Due in large
part to this lack of influence, the current regulatory playing field is
heavily slanted against nuclear, with nuclears requirements being orders of magnitude
support renewables. Both are now supporting gas, to some degree.

more strict than those applied to fossil fuels (as measured by dollars spent per unit of public health and
safety benefit, etc.). Five years ago, it seemed like things were finally moving in a more fair, balanced
direction, with the prospect of CO2 limits, etc., but now things seem set to get even worse. We have the
NRC considering adding even more regulation, and arguing that current regulations are insufficient since
the Fukushima event inflicted significant economic costs, even though the public health impacts have been
very smallmuch smaller than what NRC had always assumed the consequences of a severe meltdown
would be (i.e, current regulations were always based on the assumption that such an event would be
vastly more harmful). Meanwhile, we hear calls from the right side of the political spectrum, to reign in or
even eliminate the EPA, with no similar calls for the NRC. Humble proposals to merely reduce the ~20,000
annual deaths, in the United States alone, from fossil plant pollution are loudly decried, while nuclear
requirements are being increased even further, in a quest to reduce even the chance of the release of
pollution to even more negligible levels, without any fanfare or political resistance (even from the industry

Nuclears complete lack of political influence, and the overly

powerful influence of other sources such as coal, is starting to be
examined in some quartersa recent article by William Tucker being one example.
itself).

AT: Climate Policy Popular

Support for climate legislation is cursory Americans
support it in the abstract, but the real-life costs arent
popular
New York Times 10 (Jan 26, Alex Kaplun, ClimateWire, If Polls Say 'Yes'
to a Climate Bill, Why Do Lawmakers Say 'Maybe'?
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/26/26climatewire-if-polls-say-yes-to-aclimate-bill-why-do-la-41121.html?pagewanted=all)
Independent media polls have shown roughly the same results. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released
just before Christmas showed that 65 percent wanted the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions; an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll a few days earlier placed that voter support for

if the adage that politicians follow public

opinion is true, why are so many key lawmakers still on the fence
over the legislation? Why are politically endangered Democrats
hesitant to support a bill that the polls say that voters actually like ?
government action at 54 percent. But

And why does the seemingly popular legislative item continue to slide further and further down the
congressional agenda? Answering those questions could be pivotal for the future of climate legislation, as
both sides admit that the fate of the bill could be determined just as much by public opinion as by the
actual policy language in the legislation. Environmentalists and their allies say it takes time to connect
public sentiment with political behavior, and many lawmakers do not have a firm grasp of how the public
views this issue or how it can benefit them on the campaign trail. "There are frequently positions that
politicians take that are out-of-step with America," said Joel Benenson, head of Benenson Strategy Group,
which conducted its poll for the coalition Clean Energy Works. "I think that when you campaign and you
create a narrative about whether a candidate is siding with special interests like oil companies and Wall
Street is opposed to creating energy independence, capping pollution, regulating the financial industry, I
think that's a pretty good argument for a Democrat to have against a Republican in a lot of races right

Some lawmakers say their colleagues' perception of public

opinion has been muddied by efforts launched by a handful of powerful interests to defeat
now."

the bill. "Some folks, I don't think are listening to people on the ground -- this is a battle between public
sentiment and special interests," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), an ardent supporter of the climate change

But critics and some polling

experts see the matter differently. They say that while the public may
indeed articulate surface-level support for climate change
legislation, that sentiment fails to adequately reflect two important
factors in any political debate -- cost and voter engagement. "When
you ask people in an isolated way do they want to do something to
address the problem, they say, 'yes,'" said Christopher Borick,
director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.
"When you give them financial implications, those numbers start to
erode." Borick added, "Political figures just do not sense a deep
commitment; they see it as a cursory commitment to action rather
than a deep commitment that would include financial suppor t."
Yesterday, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that 28 percent of
voters believed that dealing with global warming should be a "top
domestic priority" for President Obama . That number put it dead last
among the 21 topics covered by the poll and at its lowest level since
Pew started testing the issue in 2007. Addressing the country's "energy problem"
bill. "Over time, the public sentiment has started to prevail."

came in at 49 percent -- an 11 percentage point drop from last year and the lowest since 2006. "There's
more support than opposition for it, but people haven't heard a lot about this," said Carroll Doherty,
associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

radar for a lot of people."

"This issue is off the

AT Aff Tricks

AT Name the Plan Avoids the Link

Congressional name spinning leads to partisan battles
Simon, Los Angeles Times congressional reporter, 11
[Richard, 6-19-11, LA Times, Congress turns bill titles into acts of
exaggeration, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/19/nation/la-na-0620titles-20110620, accessed 7-13-14, AKS]
This new generation of attack titles is ratcheting up the
gamesmanship among lawmakers in both parties who are vying to
make their bills stand out from the thousands introduced every year.
Some recent examples:
The Reducing Barack Obama's Unsustainable Deficit Act (it died in the last
session); the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act (it has languished in committee); and
the Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act (it passed the
Republican-run House, but even if approved by the Democratic-controlled
Senate is unlikely to get you-know-who's signature).
Lawmakers have long used catchy names and acronyms for bills .
Controversy over Bruce Springsteen concert ticket sales two years
ago prompted the BOSS Act for Better Oversight of Secondary Sales
and Accountability in Concert Ticketing. But now, the titles
increasingly hammer home a political point of view.
"The fact is that everything on Capitol Hill has become incredibly
polarized along partisan lines, and members of each side of the aisle
try to take advantage of anything they can get their hands on to
outflank their opponents," said Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at
Princeton University. "So it's logical that eventually even the name of
bills would be another mechanism to stick it to the other party."
The titles can be real mouthfuls, like the Regulations from the Executive in
Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act, a Republican-sponsored bill to limit the
executive branch's regulatory authority. Then there's the Democratic-written
Repealing Ineffective and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act.
Neither has made it to a vote.
The trend toward partisan names would seem counterproductive
because bills typically stand a better chance of passing if they
attract bipartisan support.

Senators rename the bills as necessary and actually read

them
Simon, Los Angeles Times congressional reporter, 11
[Richard, 6-19-11, LA Times, Congress turns bill titles into acts of
exaggeration, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/19/nation/la-na-0620titles-20110620, accessed 7-13-14, AKS]

Bills must carry a number and have an official title. "It's the prerogative of the
sponsor to name the legislation," though bills must conform to the "general
rules of decorum," a House Rules Committee spokeswoman said. She could
not recall a name ever being rejected, but no such records are kept.

It's unlikely that more ordinary names make a difference when it

comes down to voting. The Democrats' name for their healthcare
overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, didn't help
it gain any more Republican support.
But some names are designed to make it hard to oppose the bill .
After all, who could vote against the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act? It passed the House this year.
Still, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who voted against it, said
if he were asked its name, he would simply say: "That's the
Republican Sham Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. I retitle the bills
as necessary."
Reflecting on the recent spate of embellished titles, Ray Smock, the former
House historian, said the 9th Congress, which passed the Slave Trade
Prohibition Act in 1807, might have missed a historic opportunity.
"Had partisan abolitionists, using today's low standards of bill-naming, put a
title to the bill," he said, "it might have been called An Act to Prohibit the
Dastardly and Evil Jobs-Killing Slave Trade Act."

AT: Link Turn General

Err neg even previously popular ocean policy costs PC
and is controversial GOP opposition to Obama and
environmental issues
Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress,
received a masters degree in marine affairs from the University of Rhode
Island in 2005 4-13-2012 Fish on Fridays: Sensible Ocean Policy Falling
Victim to Political Games
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/04/13/11433/fish-onfridays-sensible-ocean-policy-falling-victim-to-political-games/ DA: 6/10/14
Even in the bitterest partisan times ocean issues tend to exist
outside the traditional political boxing ring.
Members who represent coastal states
usually recognize the
value
and prioritize them
But in
recent months the escalation of rancor and polarization
encompassed even the normally temperate issue of ocean policy .
Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House
where Republicans
Obamas
Ocean Policy public enemy
number one
the policy
has been taking fire from opponents
,

They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party

affiliation.

and districts

of sustaining and investing in our valuable ocean resources,

they

more than their inland counterparts.

Committee on Natural Resources,

have made President Barack

. Ever since its roll-out,

National

implemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the stewardship of

the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes

who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-

killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction
espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning

boiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than
bald political rhetoric

. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the

most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in
Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers
flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning
administration officials, scientists, industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on
Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations
Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the
regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the
development of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional
planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing
organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of
our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter
Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for hundreds of miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no
impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is designed specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination
between the agencies responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves. The news this week provided specific examples of why such
coordination is necessary. Pesticide use was found to affect Pacific salmon populations, and ocean acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These may seem like obvious conclusions to draw, but they both
exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh water be before it becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional
boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when he famously poked fun at the governments management
of salmon. The Interior Department handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he
quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of salmon management is far more sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the Department of the Interiors Fish and Wildlife Service does manage some salmon habitat
programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of sense that
we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be
talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National Ocean Policy is designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to
defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across traditional agency boundaries but could also have devastating
ramifications for the day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks eliminating funding for many of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and
prevent their rebuilding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for fishery stock assessments Conducting research
on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative to investigate potential ecosystem and economic
benefits of shellfish aquaculture Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than half of all fish caught in US waters [that]
depend on the estuaries and coastal wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from rivers and streams that can lead to massive
fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not new, and administration officials have been abundantly clear in their testimony before Congress
and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space. Healthy oceans and coasts are among the strongest

The
Ocean Policy
sets forth a
proactive framework
exactly
what small government Republicans claim they want Maybe next
time we should get
Ryan to propose it.
economic drivers and most valuable resources our nation possesses.

National

recognizes this fact and

to streamline government involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more value for their dollars
.

Rep. Paul

(R-WI)

And poison pill additions require PC even

noncontroversial issues get drawn in to larger fights
recent House action proves
Puneet Kollipara Science, Environmental, Public Policy Journalist 6-42014 U.S. House Wants Limits on Climate, Marine Policy Programs
http://oceanleadership.org/u-s-house-wants-limits-climate-marine-policyprograms/ DA: 6/10/14

the Republican-controlled House on 30 May approved a $51 billion

spending bill that would fund the departments of Commerce and Justice, and an array of other agencies including the National
Science Foundation (NSF), in the 2015 fiscal year that begins 1 October. During 2 days of debate on the bill,
House members offered scores of amendments, many proposing to shift funding between
programs or cut spending. NSF survived the free-for-all largely unscathed. But lawmakers adopted several amendments that
targeted marine research and climate science programs. The U.S. Senate, which this
In a 321 to 87 vote,

week begins work on its version of the spending bill, would have to agree to the amendments in order for them to become law (and in the past

Flores
added language barring the president from enforcing his
National Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment, which is similar to past
amendments adopted by the House but later stripped from final measures, was approved on a voice vote. In a 226 to 179 vote, the
House adopted a proposal from Representative Mark Meadows (RNC) to bar the United States from entering
international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
An amendment from Representative Scott Perry (RPA), adopted on a voice vote, would bar
spending money on a number of government climate assessments and reports, including the
has stripped similar provisions from the legislation). For now, however, these amendments remain in the mix: Representative Bill
(RTX) successfully

U.S. Global Change Research Programs National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA, released last
month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster

the
Senate will hold firm against the climate-related funding restrictions
and strip out the poison pills, says Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. The White House has also indicated its opposition to climate
research limits.
funding for ocean acidification and climate research failed on voice votes. Advocates for strong action on climate change are hoping

PC Debate

**Neg**

PC Theory True General

PC theory true for Obama- empirics
Color Lines, 11
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_
working.html
But what Obamas new insistence on a jobs agenda proves is this: the
presidency is, in fact, a powerful bully pulpit. No, he cant just wave a
magic wand and pass bills . No one credible has ever argued that. What
he can do is use the substantial power of his office to bully Congress into
action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The first step in
doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters.
Every time a president speaks, its news. So he controls the news cycle
every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, thats
what well all be talking about. The second step is negotiating from the
place of strength that this rhetorical bullying creates. And we will all
desperately need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its
grim climax this winter. So lets hope Marshall is onto something when he
says we might be at a turning point in Washington.

Your evidence oversimplifies political capital- its not just

about personality and likeability- its about the structural
advantages of the presidency
Light 99 Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the
Presidents Agenda, p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout they all mean the same thing. The most
basic and most important of all presidential resources is capital . Though the
internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have an impact on the
domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital . And capital is directly
linked to the congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the

without the necessary party support,

no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference . Though bargaining is an important
composition and the success of the domestic agenda,

tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the
table.

Also- studies prove the theory of political capital

Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in
Congress. Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association, 1-26.
Retrieved from Political Science Complete database.
Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is
clear that a handful of variables strongly influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation.

Of these variables, party control of Congress is most important (Bond

and Fleisher 1990), in that conditions of unified government increase,
while conditions of divided government decrease presidential
success, all else equal. The presidents approval ratings (Edwards 1989) and a favorable
honeymoon (Dominguez 2005) period may also increase presidential success on legislation. In addition,

presidential speeches that reference policies or roll-call votes tend to increase the presidents legislative

In their landmark
examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond and Fleisher
(1990, 230) identify yet another condition that may facilitate
presidential success on legislation when they write that the
presidents greatest influence over policy comes from the agenda
he pursues and the way it is packaged. Moreover, the policies that
the president prioritizes have a major impact on the presidents
relationship with Congress. Taken together, these assertions
strongly suggest that the policy content of the presidents
legislative agendawhat policies the president prioritizes before
Congressshould be a primary determinant of presidential success
in Congress.
success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha 2006).

Sequencing means bargaining chips are limited plan

trades off
Bernstein, 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

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
opposites.

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

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
nobody.

where and how to use the various bargaining chips that are
available.

And- our controversy aversion link

Empirics prove its not just question of capital - forcing
votes on highly a controversial item means they won't be
willing to on others - accesses structural factors and
anticipated voter reaction warrants
Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters, 11-2-2010 Katherine
Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters

After Obama was inaugurated as president in 2009, House Democrats

unleashed a formidable agenda consisting of a two-month blitz to pass a $787 billion
stimulus bill, which passed in February 2009; four months of pushing the cap-and-trade climate bill, which
passed in June 2009; and, finally, an eight-month slog to pass a financial regulation reform bill in

But only the stimulus,

health care reform and financial regulation bills made it through the
"wet cement" that is the Senate, as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has described it. After
December 2009 and a health care reform bill in February 2010.

months of talks, Senate negotiations on climate came to a standstill

this summer as partisan bickering kept the upper chamber from passing
even the smallest of energy bills. Many lawmakers have criticized House
leadership for forcing them to take a hard vote on a cap-and-trade
bill without knowing whether Senate Democrats would also be able to take up and pass the bill. "I frankly
don't think the House gave it that much thought. I think they acted on what they thought was an important
initiative at a time when the perception was that the new president and the Democrats in Congress had a
lot of momentum," said Leon Billings, a retired lobbyist and former Democratic Senate staffer who helped
write the Clean Air Act in 1970. "It was only later that the leadership in the House began to realize ... that
the Senate was going to become a cemetery rather than a maternity ward," Billings added. "It took awhile,
way too long, for the Democrats in the House, Senate and White House to realize the magnitude of the
assault that was going to be launched by the radical right and even longer to realize that it was going to
take a real toll on the country." Frost also blasted Democrats' costly political oversight, saying

and-trade vote was "much harder" than health care.

the cap-

A2: Obama Cant Use PC well

PC key to agenda - Obama does use it effectively- but its
finite and Obama perceives and acts like it is regardless
Burnett, 13

Bob Burnett, Founding Executive @ CiscoSystems, Berkeley writer, journalist,

columnist @ huffington post, 4/5, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobburnett/keystone-xl-obama_b_3020154.html
On April 3 and 4, President Obama spoke at several San Francisco fundraisers. While he didn't specifically
mention the Keystone XL pipeline, the tenor of his remarks indicated that he's likely to approve the

Obama seems to be most influenced by his inherent

political pragmatism. I've heard Barack Obama speak on several occasions. The first was
controversial project.

February 19, 2007, at a San Francisco ore-election fundraiser with a lengthy question and answer session.
Towards the end of the event a woman asked then presidential-candidate Obama what his position was

on same-sex marriage. For an instant, Obama seemed surprised; then he gathered himself and
responded he was aware of strong feelings on both sides of this issue and his position was evolving. Five
years later, in May of 2012, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. What took
Obama so long to make up his mind? No doubt he needed to clarify his own moral position -- although the
Protestant denomination he was baptized into, the United Church of Christ, announced its support for

the president carefully weighed the

political consequences and, last May, thought the timing was right. Over the last six
same-sex marriage in 2005. But I'm sure

years I've realized Barack Obama has several personas. On occasion he moves us with stirring oratory;
that's Reverend Obama, the rock star. Once in a while, he turns philosophical; that's Professor Obama, the
student of American history. On April 3, I saw Politician Obama, the pragmatic leader of the Democratic
Party.

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

Obama got a bad rap from

some Dems because they believed he did not fight hard enough for the
him as preferable to Romney on a wide range of issues. In 2009,

fiscal stimulus and affordable healthcare. In March of 2011, veteran Washington columnist, Elizabeth Drew,

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
described

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"

He is a political pragmatist who, over the past

five years, has learned to guard his political capital and focus it on
resonates with my sense of him.

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. 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 middle-class 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 middleclass.

He's conserving his political capital. He's being pragmatic .

AT: Dickinson/Ideology
Their ev is just a blog post, not peer reviewed and solely
in the context of Supreme court nominations Dickinson
concludes neg
Dickinson, 2009 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College. He taught
previously at Harvard University, where he also received his Ph.D., working under the supervision of
presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the
Future of Presidency Research, Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 no4 736-70 D 2009)
Small wonder, then, that initial efforts to find evidence of presidential power centered on explaining
legislative outcomes in Congress. Because scholars found it difficult to directly and systematically measure
presidential influence or "skill," however, they often tried to estimate it indirectly, after first establishing a
baseline model that explained these outcomes on other factors, including party strength in Congress,
members of Congress's ideology, the president's electoral support and/or popular approval, and various
control variables related to time in office and political and economic context. With the baseline established,
one could then presumably see how much of the unexplained variance might be attributed to presidents,
and whether individual presidents did better or worse than the model predicted. Despite differences in
modeling assumptions and measurements, however, these studies came to remarkably similar
conclusions: individual presidents did not seem to matter very much in explaining legislators' voting
behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard Fleisher, Jon
Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, "[S]tudies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to
find evidence that perceptions of skill have systematic effects" (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and
Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212).

To some scholars, these results indicate

that Neustadt's "president-centered" perspective is incorrect (Bond and Fleisher

1990, 221-23). In fact, the aggregate results reinforce Neustadt's recurring refrain that presidents are weak
and that, when dealing with Congress, a president's power is "comparably limited" (Neustadt 1990, 184).

The misinterpretation of the findings as they relate to PP stems in part from

scholars' difficulty in defining and operationalizing presidential
influence (Cameron 2000b; Dietz 2002, 105-6; Edwards 2000, 12; Shull and Shaw 1999). But it is also
that case that scholars often misconstrue Neustadt's analytic perspective; his description of what
presidents must do to influence policy making does not mean that he believes presidents are the dominant
influence on that process. Neustadt writes from the president's perspective, but without adopting a
president-centered explanation of power.
Nonetheless, if Neustadt clearly recognizes that a president's
influence in Congress is exercised mostly, as George Edwards (1989) puts it, "at the margins," his case
studies in PP also suggest that, within this limited bound, presidents do strive to influence legislative

Scholars often argue that a president's most direct

means of influence is to directly lobby certain members of Congress ,
often through quid pro quo exchanges, at critical junctures during the lawmaking
sequence. Spatial models of legislative voting suggest that these
lobbying efforts are most effective when presidents target the
median, veto, and filibuster "pivots" within Congress. This logic finds
empirical support in vote-switching studies that indicate that
outcomes. But how?

presidents do direct lobbying efforts at these pivotal voters, and

with positive legislative results. Keith Krehbiel analyzes successive votes by
legislators in the context of a presidential veto and finds "modest support for the sometimes
doubted stylized fact of presidential power as persuasion" (1998,153-54). Similarly,
David Brady and Craig Volden look at vote switching by members of
Congress in successive Congresses on nearly identical legislation
and also conclude that presidents do influence the votes of at least some
legislators (1998, 125-36). In his study of presidential lobbying on key votes on important domestic

Beckman
shows that in addition to these pivotal voters, presidents also lobby
leaders in both congressional parties in order to control what
legislation during the 83rd (1953-54) through 108th (2003-04) Congresses, Matthew

legislative alternatives make it onto the congressional agenda (more on

this later). These lobbying efforts are correlated with a greater likelihood that a president's legislative
preferences will come to a vote (Beckmann 2008, n.d.).
In one of the most concerted efforts to model
how bargaining takes place at the individual level, Terry Sullivan examines presidential archives containing
administrative headcounts to identify instances in which members of Congress switched positions during
legislative debate, from initially opposing the president to supporting him in the final roll call (Sullivan
1988,1990,1991). Sullivan shows that in a bargaining game with incomplete information regarding the
preferences of the president and members of Congress, there are a number of possible bargaining
outcomes for a given distribution of legislative and presidential policy preferences. These outcomes depend in part
on legislators' success in bartering their potential support for the president's policy for additional concessions from the president. In
threatening to withhold support, however, members of Congress run the risk that the president will call their bluff and turn elsewhere for the
necessary votes. By capitalizing on members' uncertainty regarding whether their support is necessary to form

a winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents can reduce members of Congress's penchant for
strategic bluffing and increase the likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the president's preference.

the skill to bargain successfully becomes a foundation for

presidential power even within the context of electorally determined
opportunities," Sullivan concludes (1991, 1188). Most of these studies infer
"Hence,

presidential influence, rather than measuring it directly (Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996,128-29; see also
Edwards 1991). Interestingly, however, although the vote "buying" approach is certainly consistent with
Neustadt's bargaining model, none of his case studies in PP show presidents employing this tactic. The
reason may be that Neustadt concentrates his analysis on the strategic level: "Strategically the question is
not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any

whether a president's lobbying efforts

bear fruit in any particular circumstance depends in large part on
the broader pattern created by a president's prior actions when
dealing with members of Congress (and "Washingtonians" more generally). These
previous interactions determine a president's professional
reputation--the "residual impressions of [a president's] tenacity and
skill" that accumulate in Washingtonians' minds, helping to "heighten or diminish" a
president's bargaining advantages. "Reputation, of itself, does not
persuade, but it can make persuasions easier, or harder, or
impossible" (Neustadt 1990, 54).
instance" (Neustadt 1990, 4). For Neustadt,

Ideology doesnt outweigh presidential success dictates

votes
Lebo, 2010 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook
University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University,
Journal of Politics, The Presidents Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena forthcoming, google)

we use established theories of congressional

parties to model the presidents role as an actor within the
constraints of the partisan environment of Congress . We also find a role for
Keeping this centrality in mind,

the president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature.
Further, we are interested in both the causes and consequences of success. We develop a theory that

the presidents record as a key component of the party politics

that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the
electoral outcomes that follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics
in Congress argue that cross-pressured legislators will side with
their parties in order to enhance the collective reputation of their
party (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), but no empirical research has answered the question: "of what
are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it is the success of the president
not parties in Congress that predicts rewards and punishments
to parties in Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing theories of party
views

competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing theories of
party politics into the literature on the presidency.

Prefer our studies examines both presidential and

congressional influence their studies dont.
Lebo 10. [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University,
and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, The
Presidents Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena Journal of Politics -- online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel. His observation that When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally, is indicative of a
view in Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative outcomes. This view is echoed in
theories of political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger

the consequences of presidential failure to members of his

party are largely unexplored in empirical research. Also, while the fairly
deep literature on the causes of presidential success has focused a lot
on the partisan environment within which the presidents legislative
battles are won and lost, it pays less attention to theories of
congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a
2007). But

view of the president as the central actor in the partisan wars is

meant to integrate the literatures

on the two institutions . Even as the study of

parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that branch,

the role of the

president is usually left out or marginalized . At the same time, research that
The result is that welldeveloped theories of parties in Congress exist but we know much
less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between
centers on the presidents success has developed with little crossover.

models of conditional party government (Aldrich and Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and

we have an advanced
understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little
knowledge of where the president fits. As the head of his party, the
presidents role in the partisan politics of Congress should be
central.
McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008),

AT: Hirsch
Hirsh is just an internet correspondent complaining
about the term political capitala. Theres still an agenda crowd out link- concedes tradeoffs
happen - especially if a policy is unpopular and out of sync
with the countrys moodie the plan
b. Despite the evs hype, it concedes it is a real thing
c. Concludes Obama messaging on immigration is a relevant
factor for GOP support
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012

Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent
for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweeks Washington web
editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, The World from Washington. Earlier
on, he was Newsweeks foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September
11 attacks and the war on terror. He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau Chief for
Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-nosuch-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control
and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often
informed by sagacious reckonings of how much political capital Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider
this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at
the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license. (It
doesnt exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants
who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and
that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the presidents health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obamas personal prestige or popularityvariously put in terms
of a mandate or political capitalchances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were
slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national
conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of
opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to
appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a
plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. Its impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make
anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didnt a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standardbearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self-deport. But this turnaround has very little to do with Obamas personal influencehis political
mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election.
Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But
the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Partys recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. Its got nothing to do

The point is not that political capital is meaningless

Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum
and just
about every politician
has tried to claim
a mandate
Many
still defend political capital as a
useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says
Ornstein
You cant
say hes got 37 ounces of
political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have
popularity and momentum
The real problem is that
political capital
is poorly defined
Presidents
over-estimate it,
with Obamas political capital or, indeed, Obama at all.

term.

in the aftermath of a decisive election

ever elected

more of

because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction.

than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that

pundits

Norman

of the American Enterprise Institute.

some

or mandates, or momentum

really look at a president and

on your side.

so

the idea of

that presidents and pundits often get it wrong.

usually

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 everelusive 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 pseudo-concept 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 that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they

a clever practitioner
can get more done because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of
Congress well
Edwards is right
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,

of power

just

. Texas A&Ms

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 fullbore 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 stock-market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it

The mistake that Bush made with Social Security says Sides,
an associate professor of political science
there was no sense of
urgency on Social Security
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
Obama has more momentum
because of the
Latino vote
THE REAL LIMITS
ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention
just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate
health care
problem was that the plan was unpopular
or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.

John

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

any kind of public

reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one.
.

. I think

on his side

Republican Partys concerns about the

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.

span,

of course,

. But this,

too, 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

law in his first term. But the real

, 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 tea-party 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

Obama
had settled on pushing an
issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood
the political problem with health care was that it distracted
from other issues people cared about
Health
care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room,
idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling.

, like Bush,

. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But

bigger

reform

that

the governments attention

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 financial-reform legislation with loopholes.

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
people. It really

oversimplifies

political capital

is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to

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

In terms of Obamas second-term agenda what all

these shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this:
Obama
needs to worry about the support he will have in the
House and Senate
fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories.

Anything goes.

has no more elections to win, and he

only

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 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. After that, Obamas public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the
president put his personal imprimatur on any planfrom deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reformRepublicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to
exploit the chastened GOPs newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own

When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered

another new message
take a
hard look at where Im saying
you
lost because of the rising
Hispanic vote Obama was
pointing the GOP toward conclusions
issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit.

as well: You Republicans dont have to listen to what I say anymore. And dont worry about whos got the political capital. Just
this: in a state

were supposed to have won but

cleverly

that he knows it is already

reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. Its your choice.

Wins dont spill over- bruising effort doesnt generate

capital- their author
Michael Hirsch, Daily Beast, 1-19-2010
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/19/the-politics-ofhubris.html

There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got

Obama apparently did buy into the idea that he

was a Man of Destiny and, being one, possessed bottomless supplies of political
capital. But he really had no more political capital than any first-year president, and he was straining
Achilles and Agamemnon in trouble with the gods.

his reserves just dealing with the stimulus and financial reform, much less
fixing Afghanistan. I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem last year while covering financial reform on
the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall
Street lobby was riddling the legislation with loopholes.

Health care was sucking all the

oxygen out of the room and from their brains, the aides said. Obama and his team seemed barely
focused on transforming the financial systemexcept now, belatedlyand left a lot of the infighting to regulators like
Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald
Reagan as a transformational president. And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection pointwhat
should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a laserlike scourging of Wall StreetObama

he has a terrific
fight on his hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the
seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner. It is only now, a year later, when

structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in big time of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill,

when the
president did do h ealth c arewhatever version of it squeaks through nowhe seemed
to be getting such a meager result for so bruising an effort that it will
be a long time before anyone has the stomach to set it right legislatively.
which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has. Just as bad,

<<INSERT AT: WINNERS WIN, PC FINITE AND PC KEY TO

IMMIGRATION>>

AT: Klein
PC theory true- empirics prove deal making matters- Klein
is overly pessimistic
Seth Mandel is Assistant Editor of Commentary magazine. He was a 2011

National Security Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Prior

to that, Mandel was Managing Editor of The Jewish State, The Jewish Journal,
and The Speaker, where he won Investigative Reporting awards for his
coverage of the Second Lebanon War and the Iranian nuclear program, as
well as Column Writing and Editorial Writing awards for his coverage of the
Middle East. His work has also been published by National Review, the Weekly
Standard, the Washington Times, and many other publications. 3-23-2012
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/presidential-persuasioncommander-in-chief-obama-reagan-clinton/
I

reading Ezra Kleins interesting take on what I consider to be a

the power of presidents to persuade the public. Kleins
piece, in the March 19 New Yorker, takes a dim view of the practical uses of presidential
finally got around to

fascinating subject:

rhetoric, using mostly presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama as case
studies. Reagan, Klein notes, was considered to be a great communicator (or, as he is remembered, the
Great Communicator), yet his approval ratings were average and many of his primary policy prescriptions
never caught on with the public. Overall, he writes, the same is true of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Bush
was unable to convince the country to accept social security reform, and Obama has been unable to sell
additional fiscal stimulus and most notably his health care reform law, which remains broadly unpopular.
The overestimation of the power of the bully pulpit, he finds, is more likely to harm a presidents domestic
policy agenda than advance it. But I think the key word there is domestic. Switch the subject to foreign
policy, and the power is somewhat restored. Bush may not have been able to sell Social Security reform,
but it would be difficult to conjure a more memorable scene from Bushs eight years in office than his
speech atop the fire truck at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It wasand remainsboth
moving and inspiring to hear the president emerge brilliantly from the shell of his tendency toward the
folksy, and sometimes awkward, when ad-libbing, at that scene. It all could have gone very differently,
since the bullhorn he was using worked only intermittently, and the crowd began losing patience. Yet, as
they shouted that they couldnt hear him, Bush remained calm, steady, and delivered a fine moment when
he responded, I can hear you. I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who
knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. Reagans most famous line, obviously, was Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It is what he is remembered for as wellnot just the words, but the
sentiment, and the political risk involved. Very few conversations about Reagan center on what he said
before or after his first-term tax deal with the Democrats. Its fitting, because though presidential elections
usually turn on the economy, the chief executive has more influence on foreign affairs. This is no different
for Obama. After Obama announced a troop surge in Afghanistan in December 2009, polls showed a 9percent jump in Americans who thought staying in Afghanistan was the right course of action, and a 6percent drop in those who opposed the war. Americans favored the speech itself by a 23-point margin. And
the president saw a 7-point jump in public approval of his handling of the war. None of this is out of the
ordinary. When I interviewed James Robbins about his book on Vietnam, This Time We Win, he argued that
polls at the time showed Lyndon Johnson to have more support for the war effortespecially its escalation
than most people think in retrospect. According to opinion polls at the time taken directly after Tet and a
few weeks after Tet, the American people wanted to escalate the war, Robbins told me. They understand
that the enemy had suffered a terrible defeat, so there was an opportunity if we had taken concerted
action to actually win this thing. Even on college campuses, he said, more people identified as hawks than
doves: The notion that young people were long-haired dope smoking draft resisters in 1967-68 is not true.
The Forrest Gump view of history is wrong. If you expand the category to national security in general,
Clinton gets a boost as well. This one is more difficult to measure than support for a war, but leading up
the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton had been marginalized to such a degree by Newt Gingrichs masterful
ability to control the narrative that Clinton offered his much-mocked plea at a briefing: The president is
still relevant here. The bombing happened the next day, and Clintons ability to project empathy and his
portrayal of opposition to his presidency as right-wing anti-government excess partly to blame for any dark
mood in which someone bombs a federal building completely changed the pace and tone of the coverage
of his presidency. Speeches delivered in the service of selling a tax increase or even solving a debt-ceiling
showdown are often treated as the president taking his eye off the ball. The president as commander-in-

I want to offer Klein

more note of optimism. He writes: Back-room bargains and quiet
negotiations do not, however, present an inspiring vision of the
Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama spent much of last summer sitting in a room
chief, however, is a role for which voters consistently express their support.
one

together, but, ultimately, the Speaker didnt make a private deal with the President for the same reason
that Republican legislators dont swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic
Party, and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may

I
disagree. The details of the deal matter, not just the party lines
become increasingly difficult for a President to governand theres little that he can do about it.

about the dispute . There is no way the backroom negotiations

Clinton conducted with Gingrich over social security reform could have been
possible if we had prime ministers, instead of presidents. The
president possesses political capital Congress doesnt. History tells
us there are effective ways to use that capital. One lesson: quiet action on
domestic policy, visible and audible leadership on national security.

Klein is quite wrong empirics cuts both ways.

Drum 3-12. [Kevin, political blogger, Presidents and the Bully Pulpit Mother Jones -http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/presidents-and-bully-pulpit]

Ezra doesn't really grapple with the strongest arguments

on the other side. For one thing, although there are examples of
presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security privatization),
there are also example of presidential offensives that succeeded
(George Bush on going to war with Iraq). The same is true for broader
themes. For example, Edwards found that "surveys of public opinion have
found that support for regulatory programs and spending on h ealth
I also think that

c are, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities
increased rather than decreased during Reagans tenure." OK. But
what about the notion that tax cuts are good for the economy ? The
public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet

Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the
Republican tax jihad has been one of the most influential political
movements of the past three decades. More generally, I think it's a mistake
to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of
legislation . Maybe those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the
ability to rally their own troops, and that matters . That's largely what Obama
has done in the contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set
agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq until George Bush
revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the
most natural thing in the world to a lot of people. Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of
the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few speeches. It's
more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters
and doing it over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as

Truman made
containment national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon
program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the
much influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do.

driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the Christian right and turned

Bush forged a bipartisan

consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense .
that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and George

It's true that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's
also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.

Partisanship is about politics not ideology proves our

link story true this cites the study your card cites.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @
Williams College, Book Reviews: American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in
the U.S. Senate Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
In 2008, Barack Obama's calls for a new postpartisan era struck a chord with many Americans. Yet
President Obama has struggled with Congress to produce even bipartisan outcomes. The reigning wisdom
on partisanship would suggest that this is because the ideological divide between the parties is simply too

Lee's thoughtful new book, which is a study of Senate voting behavior from 1981
offers an alternative interpretation, one that validates public skepticism
of inside-the-beltway party politics. Her claim is that much of the congressional
partisanship is about politics and power, rather than ideological
differences. Collective political interests within each party predispose Democrats and Republicans to
stark. Frances

through 2004,

oppose each other, even on votes with no ideological content. If true, then public distaste for partisan
bickering is reasonable, and much of the conventional scholarly understanding of congressional
partisanship is wrong. Lee begins by historicizing and challenging the methodological individualism now

ascribing legislator vote behavior to

individual policy preference and treating party cohesion as
ideological cohesion and party difference as ideological difference. As
she astutely points out, the problem with this conceptualization is that it
reads ideology into every partisan dispute. Rather than assuming ideological
dominating studies of Congress for

content based on the observed behavioral patterns of votes, Lee uses legislative language and
Congressional Record debates to distinguish, a priori, those roll call votes that bear on liberal/conservative
debates over the economy, social issues, and foreign policy from those that do not. What she discovers is

a full 44% of party votes are over issues of no identifiable

ideological significance (p. 65).
that

Fights occur to score political points context of each

particular fight is key prefer our issue specific capital
key warrants.
Mellow 11. [Nicole, Associate Professor of Political Science, Chair of Leadership Studies Program @
Williams College, Book Reviews: American Politics Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in
the U.S. Senate Perspectives on Politics, Vol 9, Issue 3, p. 722-723]
Lee's findings lead her to conclude that

Democrats and Republicans often fight to

advance their party's political interests

in being perceived as effective or being

associated with popular outcomes. The party, in her view, is a political institution (p. 182), a team of
members who have gotten better at working together to advance collective electoral and political goals.

one party will regularly disagree with the other simply to make
the president look bad (or good), to discredit the opposition's integrity, to
Thus,

attempt to control the debate , or to burnish its image. In short, today's parties
fight because there is political payoff even if there is no ideological
reward. When we understand this, we see why bipartisanship is so hard to come by. Lee designs her
research carefully and rigorously. For example, in determining whether to count a vote as ideological, she
digs deeply into the public record to learn if senators discussed any aspect in ideologically identifiable
terms. In coding nonideological votes, such as good government votes, Lee excludes those that may be
even partially about ideology, such as nomination fights in which part of the debate was about the
nominee's policy views and part was about credentials or ethics. Expansive ideological categories make for
a harder test of her argument, as do narrower nonideological categories. There are some elements of the
research, though, where greater clarification would be especially useful (some might claim critical). Most
important is the description of nonideological votes. According to the author's method, these votes

account for a sizable majoritynearly 60%of all Senate votes in her time period (p. 65), and thus are
central to her argument. She provides some textual description of the types of issues included (e.g., good
government, institutional powers, some federal programs), but knowing more about these votes and how
they break down, similar to what she usefully provides for ideological votes, would be helpful in evaluating
her argument. One suspects that in any given political moment, a putatively nonideological partisan
battle over an ethics investigation or presidential power is actually a proxy war about the party-in-power's
liberal (or conservative) agenda. While the nominal issue at hand may, in principle, defy left/right
categorization, the vote is nevertheless very much about ideological commitments.

Context is

everything , and without knowing more details of this broad

category, it is difficult to ascertain whether an issue is as free of
ideological portent as the public record suggests.

Public appeals arent even the main source of capital

your articles generalizations are wrong.
Dickinson 9. [ Matthew, Professor of Political Science - Middlebury College, We All Want a
Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the Future of Presidency Research Presidential Studies
Quarterly Volume 39 Issue 4 -- December p 736-770]

Neustadt
remains skeptical that presidents can substitute "going public" for
bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals," he argues
instead, " are part of bargaining , albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than
before in reputation" (Neustadt 1990, xv). A key reason why presidents cannot
expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that approval
levels are largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases,

relatively lasting changes [in Gallup Polls measuring popular approval] come at the same time as great
events with widespread consequences" (81).

**Aff Answers**

Persuasion Fails
Presidential rhetoric has no effect on the public or on
Congress- empirical data proves
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12

[Ezra, 3-19-12, New Yorker, The Unpersuaded? Who listens to a President?,

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?
currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13, MSG]
In 1993, George Edwards, the director of the Center for Presidential Studies,
at Texas A. & M. University, sponsored a program in Presidential
rhetoric. The program led to a conference, and the organizers asked their
patron to present a paper. Edwards didnt know anything about Presidential
rhetoric himself, however, so he asked the organizers for a list of the best
works in the field to help him prepare.
Like many political scientists, Edwards is an empiricist. He deals in
numbers and tables and charts, and even curates something called the
Presidential Data Archive. The studies he read did not impress him.
One, for example, concluded that public speech no longer attends
the processes of governanceit is governance, but offered no
rigorous evidence. Instead, the author justified his findings with
vague statements like One anecdote should suffice to make this
latter point.
Nearly twenty years later, Edwards still sounds offended. They were
talking about Presidential speeches as if they were doing literary criticism,
he says. I just started underlining the claims that were faulty. As a result,
his conference presentation, Presidential Rhetoric: What Difference Does It
Make?, was less a contribution to the research than a frontal assault on it.
The paper consists largely of quotations from the other political scientists
work, followed by comments such as He is able to offer no systematic
evidence, and We have no reason to accept such a conclusion, and
Sometimes the authors assertions, implicit or explicit, are clearly wrong.
Edwards ended his presentation with a study of his own, on Ronald
Reagan, who is generally regarded as one of the Presidencys great
communicators. Edwards wrote, If we cannot find evidence of the
impact of the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, then we have reason to
reconsider the broad assumptions regarding the consequences of
rhetoric. As it turns out, there was reason to reconsider. Reagan
succeeded in passing major provisions of his agenda, such as the 1981
tax cuts, but, Edwards wrote, surveys of public opinion have found that
support for regulatory programs and spending on health care,
welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and
aid to minoritiesall programs that the President opposed
increased rather than decreased during Reagans tenure.
Meanwhile, support for increased defense expenditures was
decidedly lower at the end of his administration than at the
beginning. In other words, people were less persuaded by Reagan
when he left office than they were when he took office.

Nor was Reagans Presidency distinguished by an unusually strong

personal connection with the electorate. A study by the Gallup
organization, from 2004, found that, compared with all the Presidential
job-approval ratings it had on record, Reagans was slightly below
average, at fifty-three per cent. It was only after he left office that
Americans came to see him as an unusually likable and effective
leader.
According to Edwards, Reagans real achievement was to take
advantage of a transformation that predated him. Edwards quotes
various political scientists who found that conservative attitudes peaked,
and liberal attitudes plateaued, in the late nineteen-seventies, and
that Reagan was the beneficiary of these trends, rather than their
instigator. Some of Reagans closest allies support this view. Martin
Anderson, who served as Reagans chief domestic-policy adviser, wrote,
What has been called the Reagan revolution is not completely, or even
mostly, due to Ronald Reagan. . . . It was the other way around. Edwards
later wrote, As one can imagine, I was a big hit with the auditorium full of
dedicated scholars of rhetoric.
Edwardss views are no longer considered radical in political-science
circles, in part because he has marshalled so much evidence in
support of them. In his book On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit
(2003), he expanded the poll-based rigor that he applied to Reagans
rhetorical influence to that of nearly every other President since the
nineteen-thirties. Franklin Delano Roosevelts fireside chats are
perhaps the most frequently cited example of Presidential
persuasion. Cue Edwards: He gave only two or three fireside chats a
year, and rarely did he focus them on legislation under consideration
in Congress. It appears that FDR only used a fireside chat to discuss
such matters on four occasions, the clearest example being the broadcast
on March 9, 1937, on the ill-fated Court-packing bill. Edwards also quotes
the political scientists Matthew Baum and Samuel Kernell, who, in a more
systematic examination of Roosevelts radio addresses, found that they
fostered less than a 1 percentage point increase in his approval
rating. His more traditional speeches didnt do any better. He was
unable to persuade Americans to enter the Second World War, for
example, until Pearl Harbor.
No President worked harder to persuade the public, Edwards says,
than Bill Clinton. Between his first inauguration, in January, 1993, and his
first midterm election, in November, 1994, he travelled to nearly two
hundred cities and towns, and made more than two hundred
appearances, to sell his Presidency, his legislative initiatives (notably his
health-care bill), and his party. But his poll numbers fell, the health-care bill
failed, and, in the next election, the Republicans took control of the
House of Representatives for the first time in more than forty years.
Yet Clinton never gave up on the idea that all he needed was a few
more speeches, or a slightly better message. Ive got to . . . spend
more time communicating with the American people, the President said in a
1994 interview. Edwards notes, It seems never to have occurred to
him or his staff that his basic strategy may have been inherently
flawed.

George W. Bush was similarly invested in his persuasive ability. After

the 2004 election, the Bush Administration turned to the longtime
conservative dream of privatizing Social Security. Bush led the
effort, with an unprecedented nationwide push that took him to sixty
cities in sixty days. Let me put it to you this way, he said at a press
conference, two days after the election. I earned capital in the campaign,
political capital, and now I intend to spend it. But the poll numbers for
privatizationand for the Presidentkept dropping, and the
Administration turned to other issues.
Obama, too, believes in the power of Presidential rhetoric. After
watching the poll numbers for his health-care plan, his stimulus bill, his
Presidency, and his party decline throughout 2010, he told Peter Baker,
of the Times, that he hadnt done a good enough job communicating
with the American people: I think anybody whos occupied this office has
to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and
politics and that you cant be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public
opinion.
The annual State of the Union address offers the clearest example of
the misconception. The best speechwriters are put on the task. The biggest
policy announcements are saved for it. The speech is carried on all the major
networks, and Americans have traditionally considered watching it to
be something of a civic duty. And yet Gallup, after reviewing polls dating
back to 1978, concluded that these speeches rarely affect a
presidents public standing in a meaningful way, despite the amount
of attention they receive. Obamas 2012 address fit the pattern. His
approval rating was forty-six per cent on the day of the speech, and
forty-seven per cent a week later.
Presidents have plenty of pollsters on staff, and they give many speeches in
the course of a year. So how do they so systematically overestimate
the importance of those speeches? Edwards believes that by the time
Presidents reach the White House their careers have taught them
that they can persuade anyone of anything. Think about how these
guys become President, he says. The normal way is talking for two
years. Thats all you do, and somehow you win. You must be a really
persuasive fellow.

Compartmentalization by Congress means opposition is

never persuaded
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a
President?,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?
currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13, HG]
Back-room bargains and quiet negotiations do not, however, present an
inspiring vision of the Presidency. And they fail, too. Boehner and Obama
spent much of last summer sitting in a room together, but,
ultimately, the Speaker didnt make a private deal with the President
for the same reason that Republican legislators dont swoon over a public

speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins they
lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply
divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to
governand theres little that he can do about it.
Theorists have long worried over this possibility. They note that our form of
government is not common. As Juan Linz, a professor of political science at
Yale, pointed out in a 1989 paper, The only presidential democracy with a
long history of constitutional continuity is the United States. A broad
tendency toward instability and partisan conflict, he writes, is woven
into the fabric of a political system in which a democratically elected
executive can come from one party and a democratically elected
legislature from another. Both sides end up having control over
some levers of power, a claim to be carrying out the will of the
public, and incentives that point in opposite directions.
The American system has traditionally had certain features that reduced the
stakesnotably, political parties that encompassed a diverse range of
opinions and often acted at cross purposes with themselves. But today the
parties operate as disciplined, consistent units. According to Congressional
Quarterly, in 2009 and 2010 Democrats and Republicans voted with their
parties ninety per cent of the time. That rigidity has made American
democracy much more difficult to manageand it has made the President, as
party leader, a much more divisive figure.
Edwards, ever the data cruncher, has the numbers to back up this perception.
When President Obama took office, he enjoyed a 68 percent approval level,
the highest of any newly elected president since John F. Kennedy, he wrote
in a recent paper. For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, however,
his early approval ratings were the most polarized of any president
in the past four decades. By February 15, less than a month after taking
office, only 30 percent of Republicans approved of his performance in office
while 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents approved.
The gap between Democratic and Republican approval had already reached
59 percentage pointsand Obama never again reached even 30 percent
approval among Republicans.
This, Edwards says, is the reality facing modern Presidents, and one they
would do well to accommodate. In a rational world, strategies for governing
should match the opportunities to be exploited, he writes. Barack Obama is
only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to
transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he
succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed
to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.
Thats easier said than done. We dont have a system of government set
up for Presidents to drive legislation through Congress. Rather, we
have a system that was designed to encourage division between the
branches but to resist the formation of political parties. The parties formed
anyway, and they now use the branches to compete with one another. Add in
minority protections like the filibuster, and you have a system in which the
job of the President is to persuade an opposition party that has both the
incentive and the power to resist him.
Jim Cooper says, Weve effectively lost our Congress and gained a
parliament. He adds, At least a Prime Minister is empowered to get things

done, but we have the extreme polarization of a parliament, with party-line

voting, without the empowered Prime Minister. And you cant solve that with
a speech.

Presidential persuasion backfires compartmentalizes

policymakers and increases opposition to proposals
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
[Ezra, 3-19-12, The New Yorker, The Unpersuaded: Who Listens to a
President?,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?
currentPage=all, accessed 7-8-13, HG]
But being President isnt the same as running for President. When youre
running for President, giving a good speech helps you achieve your goals.
When you are President, giving a good speech can prevent you from
achieving them.
In January, 2004, George W. Bush announced his intention to take the
next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to
worlds beyond. It was an occasion that might have presented a
moment of bipartisan unity: a Republican President was proposing
to spend billions of dollars on a public project to further John F.
Kennedys dream of venturing deep into the cosmos. As Frances Lee, now a
professor at the University of Maryland, recalls, That wasnt a partisan issue
at all. Democrats had no position on sending a mission to Mars. But,
she says, they suddenly began to develop one. They began to
believe it was a waste of money. Congressional Democrats pushed the
argument in press releases, public statements, and television appearances. In
response, the White House, which had hinted that the Mars mission would
feature prominently in the State of the Union address, dropped it from the
speech.
The experience helped to crystallize something that Lee had been thinking
about. Most of the work on the relationship between the President and
Congress was about the President as the agenda setter, she says. I was
coming at it from the perspective of the increase in partisanship, and so I
looked at Presidents not as legislative leaders but as party leaders. That
changes things dramatically. As Lee writes in her book Beyond Ideology
(2009), there are inherent zero-sum conflicts between the two
parties political interests as they seek to win elections. Put more
simply, the Presidents party cant win unless the other party loses. And both
parties know it. This, Lee decided, is the true nature of our political system.
To test her theory, she created a database of eighty-six hundred Senate votes
between 1981 and 2004. She found that a Presidents powers of
persuasion were strong, but only within his own party. Nearly four
thousand of the votes were of the mission-to-Mars varietythey should have
found support among both Democrats and Republicans. Absent a Presidents
involvement, these votes fell along party lines just a third of the time, but
when a President took a stand that number rose to more than half. The same
thing happened with votes on more partisan issues, such as bills that raised
taxes; they typically split along party lines, but when a President
intervened the divide was even sharper.

One way of interpreting this is that party members let their opinion of the
President influence their evaluation of the issues. Thats not entirely
unreasonable. A Democrat might have supported an intervention in Iraq but
questioned George W. Bushs ability to manage it effectively. Another
interpretation is that party members let their political incentives influence
how they evaluate policy. Whatever people think about raw policy issues,
theyre aware that Presidential successes will help the Presidents party and
hurt the opposing party, Lee says. Its not to say theyre entirely cynical,
but the fact that success is useful to the Presidents party is going to have an
effect on how members respond. Or, to paraphrase Upton Sinclair, its
difficult to get a man to support something if his relection depends on his
not supporting it.
Both parties are guilty of this practice. Karl Rove, President Bushs deputy
chief of staff, recalls discussing the Social Security privatization plan with a
sympathetic Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He says
that the representative told him, You wouldnt get everything you want and I
wouldnt get everything I want, but we could solve the problem. But I cant do
it because my leadership wont let me. Rove says, It was less about Social
Security than it was about George W. Bush. At various times during the
nineteen-nineties, Clinton and other Democrats had been open to adding
some form of private accounts to Social Security, and in 1997 there were,
reportedly, quiet discussions between Democrats and Republicans about
doing exactly that. In theory, this background might have led to a
compromise in 2005, but Bushs aggressive sales pitch had polarized the
issue.
The Obama Administration was taken by surprise when
congressional Republicans turned against the individual mandate in
health-care reform; it was the Republicans, after all, who had
championed the idea, in 1993, as an alternative to the Clinton initiative.
During the next decade, dozens of Senate Republicans co-sponsored healthcare plans that included a mandate. Mitt Romney, of course, passed one
when he was governor of Massachusetts. In 2007, when Senator Jim DeMint,
of South Carolinanow a favorite of the Tea Partyendorsed Romney for
President, he cited his health-care plan as a reason for doing so.
Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, who supported the mandate before he opposed
it, shrugs off his partys change of heart. We were fighting Hillarycare, he
has said, of the Republicans original position. In other words, Clinton
polarized Republicans against one health-care proposal, and then Obama
turned them against another.

No Effect
Capital barely affects the DA 8% swing

Beckman and Kumar 11 (Matthew, associate professor of political science

UC Irvine, and Vimal economic professor at the Indian Institute of Tech,
Opportunism in Polarization, Presidential Studies Quarterly, September, 41.3)
The final important piece in our theoretical model presidents' political capital also
finds support in these analyses, though the results here are less reliable.
Presidents operating under the specter of strong economy and high
approval ratings get an important, albeit moderate, increase in their
chances for prevailing on "key" Senate roll-call votes (b = .10, se = .06, p < .
10). Figure 4 displays the substantive implications of these results in the context of polarization, showing

going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third
increases presidents' chances for success by 8 percentage points (in a
setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide an
important boost to presidents' success on Capitol Hill, but it is
that

certainly not potent enough to overcome basic congressional realities .

Political capital is just strong enough to put a presidential thumb on

the congressional scales, which often will not matter, but can in close cases.

Winners Win
Winners win.
Halloran 10 (Liz, Reporter NPR, For Obama, What A Difference A Week
Made, National Public Radio, 4-6,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125594396)
Amazing what a win in a major legislative battle will do for a
president's spirit. (Turmoil over spending and leadership at the Republican National Committee

over the past week, and the release Tuesday of a major new and largely sympathetic book about the
president by New Yorker editor David Remnick, also haven't hurt White House efforts to drive its own, new
narrative.) Obama's Story Though the president's national job approval ratings failed to get a boost by the
passage of the health care overhaul his numbers have remained steady this year at just under 50

he has earned grudging respect even from those who don't

agree with his policies. "He's achieved something that virtually everyone in Washington
percent

thought he couldn't," says Henry Olsen, vice president and director of the business-oriented American

that's given him confidence." The

protracted health care battle looks to have taught the White House something
about power, says presidential historian Gil Troy a lesson that will inform
Obama's pursuit of his initiatives going forward. "I think that Obama realizes that
Enterprise Institute's National Research Initiative. "And

presidential power is a muscle ,

the stronger it gets ,"

and

the more you exercise it,

Troy says. "He exercised that power and had a success with health care passage,

and now he wants to make sure people realize it's not just a blip on the map." The White House now has an opportunity,
he says, to change the narrative that had been looming that the Democrats would lose big in the fall midterm elections,
and that Obama was looking more like one-term President Jimmy Carter than two-termer Ronald Reagan, who also
managed a difficult first-term legislative win and survived his party's bad showing in the midterms. Approval Ratings
Obama is exuding confidence since the health care bill passed, but his approval ratings as of April 1 remain unchanged
from the beginning of the year, according to Pollster.com. What's more, just as many people disapprove of Obama's health
care policy now as did so at the beginning of the year. According to the most recent numbers: Forty-eight percent of all
Americans approve of Obama, and 47 disapprove. Fifty-two percent disapprove of Obama's health care policy, compared
with 43 percent who approve. Stepping Back From A Precipice Those watching the re-emergent president in recent days
say it's difficult to imagine that it was only weeks ago that Obama's domestic agenda had been given last rites, and
pundits were preparing their pieces on a failed presidency. Obama himself had framed the health care debate as a
referendum on his presidency. A loss would have "ruined the rest of his presidential term," says Darrell West, director of
governance studies at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "It would have made it difficult to address other issues and
emboldened his critics to claim he was a failed president." The conventional wisdom in Washington after the Democrats
lost their supermajority in the U.S. Senate when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat long held by the late
Sen. Edward Kennedy was that Obama would scale back his health care ambitions to get something passed. "I thought he
was going to do what most presidents would have done take two-thirds of a loaf and declare victory," says the AEI's
Olsen. "But he doubled down and made it a vote of confidence on his presidency, parliamentary-style." "You've got to be
impressed with an achievement like that," Olsen says. But Olsen is among those who argue that, long-term, Obama and
his party would have been better served politically by an incremental approach to reworking the nation's health care
system, something that may have been more palatable to independent voters Democrats will need in the fall. "He would
have been able to show he was listening more, that he heard their concerns about the size and scope of this," Olsen says.

Muscling out a win on a sweeping health care package may have

invigorated the president and provided evidence of leadership , but,
his critics say, it remains to be seen whether Obama and his party can
reverse what the polls now suggest is a losing issue for them.

All their plan controversial links feed our turn.

Controversial wins swings Dems

Sargent, 8/23/2010 (Greg, Why is left so disappointed in Obama?, The

Washington Post, p. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plumline/2010/08/politico_channels_professional.html)
The fetishizing of bipartisanship, and the hope that a few
Republicans could be induced to back his agenda, is also what led
Obama to avoid taking a strong, bottom-line stand on core principles, such as

White House advisers also seemed reluctant for Obama to

stake real political capital on provisions that were likely to fail ,
which also contributed to his mixed messages on core liberal priorities. To be clear, I
the public option.

tend to think this critique is overstated: Obama has passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since
FDR, and there are some grounds for believing that the White House got as much as it possibly could have.

if the White House hadn't fetishized bipartisanship early on;

if he had taken a
stronger stand on behalf of core priorities even if they were destined
But my bet is that

if Obama had drawn a sharper contrast with the GOP from the outset; and

for failure , his lefty critics would be more willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt .

Wins spill over.

Marshall and Prins, September 2011 (Bryan associate professor of
political science at Miami University of Ohio, and Brandon professor of
political science at the University of Tennessee, Power or Posturing? Policy
availability and congressional influence on U.S. presidential decision to use
force, Presidential Studies Quarterly, p. ProQuest)
Presidents rely heavily on Congress in converting their political
capital into real policy success . Policy success not only shapes the reelection
prospects of presidents, but it also builds the president's reputation for political
effectiveness and fuels the prospect for subsequent gains in
political capital (Light 1982). Moreover, the president's legislative success in
foreign policy is correlated with success on the domestic front . On this
point, some have largely disavowed the two-presidencies distinction while others have even argued that
foreign policy has become a mere extension of domestic policy (Fleisher et al. 2000; Oldfield and

Presidents implicitly understand that there exists a linkage

between their actions in one policy area and their ability to affect
another. The use of force is no exception; in promoting and protecting U.S. interests abroad,
Wildavsky 1989)

presidential decisions are made with an eye toward managing political capital at home (Fordham 2002).