Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Beyond the Border

[BTB 1NC Shell 1/3]



Space exploration costs Obamas political capital
Powell 9
STEWART M. POWELL, 2009 (staff writer, Sept. 13, 2009, Potential uphill battle for NASA,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6615751.html)
NASA supporters are bracing for an uphill battle to get the extra funding needed to take on missions more ambitious
than visits to the international space station. A high-level panel told President Barack Obama last week that the space program
needs an infusion of about $3 billion more a year by 2014. That may be a tough sell, even though the amount could be
considered spare change in a fast-spending capital where the White House and Congress are on track to dole out nearly $4 trillion this year to
finance federal operations, including bailouts for Wall Street firms, banks and automakers. The congressional agenda over the next year is going
to be focused on cutting programs, not adding to them, said Scott Lilly, a scholar at the Center for American Progress. Adding resources to the
nation's $18.7 billion-a-year space program would require cuts in other areas, said Lilly, who doesn't think lawmakers are willing to make those
trades. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, said wrangling the
additional $3 billion a year would be an enormous challenge but one I am prepared to win. Added Olson, whose district includes Johnson
Space Center: NASA doesn't require bailout funds it needs the promised level of investment that previous Congresses have endorsed. The
10-member panel of space experts led by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine suggested extending U.S. participation in the $100
billion space station for five years, extending budgeting for the retiring shuttle fleet by six months, delaying plans for a 2020 return to the moon
and extending the timeline for the next generation of manned spacecraft by two years at least until 2017. But the experts warned in their 12-page
preliminary report to Obama on Tuesday that meaningful human exploration would be possible only under a less constrained budget ramping
(up) to approximately $3 billion per year in additional spending by 2014. Former astronaut Sally Ride, a member of the committee, forecast
$27.1 billion in additional funds would be needed over the next decade a 27 percent increase over the $99.1 billion currently planned. Even
before Obama publicly reacts to Augustine's report to map the next steps in the nation's manned space exploration, members of Congress are
scrambling. The immediate challenge goes beyond money to just getting NASA on the radar screen when everyone is focused on health care
reform, said a key congressional staffer involved in NASA issues. Finding support NASA supporters initially are targeting the Democratic
leadership of appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate with jurisdiction over NASA. Space advocates have an ally in Sen. Barbara
Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that handles space agency spending. But in the House, pro-NASA
lawmakers expect a fight with Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel that cut next year's NASA
spending nearly $500 million below what Obama requested. Lawmakers are looking for a House-Senate conference committee to restore the
funds that Mollohan cut before the Augustine panel completed its work. Aides to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chairman of a Senate subcommittee
that oversees NASA, said they have already identified six potential sources of additional NASA funding within the federal budget, including
some of the $8 billion promised over the next decade to private energy firms to research fossil fuels and deep drilling for oil and gas. Lawmakers
also are exploring the possibility of redirecting some of the two-year, $787 billion economic stimulus package from shovel-ready transportation
construction projects and other federally subsidized programs into the NASA budget. The administration so far has only paid out $160 billion of
the total, according to Vice President Joe Biden. A lot of stimulus money has not been spent, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-San Antonio. We
should redirect some of those stimulus funds to pay for enhancements to the NASA budget because I believe human space flight is so important.
Aerospace executives and veteran space experts are hoping for reliable year-to-year funding. These are challenging economic times, but this is
not the moment to turn away from leading a global space exploration effort, said Dean Acosta, head of the Houston-based Coalition for Space
Exploration. President's influence Presidential leadership will be essential to gaining an increase, emphasized John Logsdon, a
space policy expert who served on the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The president has to use some portion of his
political capital to put forward an Obama space program. Congressional staffers are looking to Tuesday's hearing by the House
Committee on Science and Technology with testimony by Augustine to gauge the breadth of potential support for additional NASA spending.
NASA administrator Charles Bolden was supposed to testify, but he withdrew because Obama hasn't yet indicated his plans for the future of the
space program. If we see a lot of questions about additional spending at that hearing, we'll know we have trouble, said one congressional
staffer,



[BTB 1NC Shell 2/3]

Beyond the Border will pass in both Canada and the US, but political capital is key. Beyond the Border is the
key internal to trade and relations which are on the brink
The Economist 12/11
The border two-step
A deal that attempts to assuage American fears about security and Canadian worries about obstacles to trade
Dec 11th 2011 | OTTAWA | from the print edition http://www.economist.com/node/21541421

EVER since an unsuccessful attempt by the United States to conquer Canada in the war of 1812, Canadians have worried that Americans harbour
ambitions to control, if not to own, their territory. This means that bilateral accords, of which there are some 698 on file, are jealously examined
for their impact on Canadian sovereignty. The latest deal, called Beyond the Border and announced by Stephen Harper, Canadas
prime minister, and President Barack Obama in Washington on December 7th, will attract particular scrutiny, because it
involves not just trade but the sensitive issue of shared security. Mr Harpers aim in seeking the deal was to
dismantle at least some of the restrictions that have piled up at the border in the name of security since the terrorist
attacks of September 11th 2001. The United States has agreed to do so if Canada meets its security concerns by
providing more information on travellers, adopting US methods of baggage screening and exit controls, and harmonising a
host of other security measures. A separate deal on regulations commits the two countries to work toward common standards on
everything from food safety to locomotive emissions. These agreements represent the most significant step forward in
Canada-US co-operation since the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), says Mr Harper, whose goal was to protect
Canadas access to the American market. Doing so is of great concern to Canadian business. Although the government is
trying hard to find other markets, concluding a host of free-trade agreements with Latin American countries and negotiating broader
economic pacts with the European Union and India, the United States remains by far Canadas biggest trading partner, buying
73% of goods exported last year and supplying 63% of imports. Bilateral trade in goods and services totalled C$646
billion ($627 billion) in 2010. Yet this relationship has suffered recent blows, including the Buy American provisions
in the jobs bill, a new fee for cross-border travel and the administrations stalling on approval for the Keystone oil
pipeline from Alberta to Texas. But some aspects of Beyond the Border are controversial in Canada. That is especially true of passing on
information about travellers. Even before the deal was announced, the New Democratic and Liberal parties pointed to concerns flagged by the
privacy commissioner, an officer of Parliament, and accused the Conservative government of selling out to the Americans. The two governments
say they will stay within the legal and privacy regimes of both countries and would develop joint privacy principles to guide their intelligence
sharing. There is also opposition to harmonising product and safety rules. The prevailing view in Canada is that regulatory co-operation will
erode our standards, which are generally considered to be higher than those of the United States, the Conference Board, a business lobby,
reported recently. None of this is likely to derail the agreement in Canada. Mr Harper enjoys a parliamentary majority. Several
prominent Liberals are now among the business cheerleaders for the deal. And anti-American feeling north of the
border has recently subsided. Canadians like Mr Obama a lot more than they did his Republican predecessor, George
Bush. They pity rather than envy Americans because of the higher unemployment rate and more depressed housing
market south of the border. The bigger question is whether Mr Obama can implement his end of the deal, given the
other demands on his time and political capital during an election year. Although a large majority of Americans
consider Canada to be a fair trader (a recent poll found 81% felt like this compared with 41% in relation to Mexico and 29% for China),
they are generally unsympathetic to trade deals in todays economically depressed climate. The nativist wing of the
Republican Party opposes Beyond the Border, just as it did an earlier failed attempt to deepen NAFTA, which involves Mexico too. Despite
being Americas largest trade partner and energy supplier, Canada has a low profile in Washington, except when it
finds itself in the spotlight for the wrong reasons, such as being a source of so-called dirty oil from the Alberta tar
sands. Mr Harper is doing his best to hedge his bets. He has begun to cultivate various Asian countries, especially China. Snubbed by the
United States over the Keystone pipeline, he made a point of telling Chinas president that Canada is keen to supply more energy to Asia. But
geography is still a big part of Canadas destiny. Beyond the Border is important.

[BTB 1NC Shell 3/3]
Read Impact Module




Relations Module

US-Canada Trade Relations are on the brink
Ek and Fergusson 9/13
Canada-U.S. Relations Congressional Research Service; Carl Ek, Coordinator Specialist in International Relations
Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance
September 13, 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf

The United States and Canada maintain the worlds largest bilateral trading relationship, one that has been
strengthened over the past two decades by the approval of two major free trade agreements. Although commercial disputes
may not be quite as prominent now as they have been in the past, the two countries in recent years have engaged in difficult
negotiations over items in several trade sectors, including natural resources, agricultural commodities, and the
cultural/entertainment industry. The most recent dispute has centered around the Buy America provision of the 2009
economic stimulus law. However, these disputes affect but a small percentage of the total goods and services exchanged. In recent years,
energy has increasingly emerged as a key component of the trade relationship.

US-Canada Relations solve terrorism and air pollution
Ek and Fergusson 9/13
Canada-U.S. Relations Congressional Research Service; Carl Ek, Coordinator Specialist in International Relations
Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance
September 13, 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf

Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in tenor over the past
three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to
Ottawa and Washington, and although Canadas Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when
necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in Ottawa. It was regarded as
being more philosophically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration than the Liberals were; some observers believe that this
compatibility helped facilitate bilateral cooperation. The election of President Obama in November 2008 signaled a new chapter in U.S.-Canada
relations; unlike President Bush, Obama is quite popular in Canada. The two North American countries continue to cooperate
widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international
organizations. Canadas foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of
contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and
Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in
Afghanistan. Both countries have also been active participants in the U.N.-sanctioned NATO mission in Libya. In addition, the United
States and Canada work together closely on environmental matters, including monitoring air quality and solid waste
transfers, and protecting and maintaining the quality of border waterways.

Future terrorism will be nuclear in naturemultiple sources allow terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons:
Marvin Cetron, 2007 (president of Forecasting International). May 1, 2007. The Futurist. Online. Internet.
Accessed April 12, 2010 at http://www.nsaww.com/media_publications_2007-05.html.
2. Terrorists will gain weapons of mass destruction. The elite among tomorrow's terrorists will have more
than plastic explosives with which to make their point. They will have nuclear weapons. Pakistani engineer Abdul
Qadeer Khan ensured that when he gave Pakistan what most extremists regard as an "Islamic bomb" and then spread
the plans far and wide. If terrorists cannot lay hands on a stolen weapon from the former Soviet Union, they
soon may be able to obtain them from either Islamabad or Tehran.

Terrorists will use nuclear weapons triggering a global nuclear war and threatening all life on the planet.
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, 2004. Extinction! Online. Internet. Accessed April 12, 2010 at
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate
the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on
themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between
civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms
race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which
no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another,
this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be
losers.
Air pollution risks extinction
Driesen 03 (David, Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law. J.D. Yale Law School, 1989,
Fall/Spring, 10 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 25, lexis)

Air pollution can make life unsustainable by harming the ecosystem upon which all life depends and harming
the health of both future and present generations. The Rio Declaration articulates six key principles that are relevant
to air pollution. These principles can also be understood as goals, because they describe a state of affairs [*27] that is worth achieving. Agenda
21, in turn, states a program of action for realizing those goals. Between them, they aid understanding of sustainable development's meaning
for air quality. The first principle is that "human beings. . . are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with
nature", because they are "at the center of concerns for sustainable development." 3 While the Rio Declaration refers to
human health, its reference to life "in harmony with nature" also reflects a concern about the natural environment.
4Since air pollution damages both human health and the environment, air quality implicates both of these concerns.
5 Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate, tropospheric ozone, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides have historically threatened urban air quality in the
United States. This review will focus upon tropospheric ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide, because these pollutants present the most
widespread of the remaining urban air problems, and did so at the time of the earth summit. 6 Tropospheric ozone refers to ozone fairly near to
the ground, as opposed to stratospheric ozone high in the atmosphere. The stratospheric ozone layer protects human health and the environment
from ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion causes problems. 7 By contrast, tropospheric [*28] ozone damages human health and the
environment. 8 In the United States, the pollutants causing "urban" air quality problems also affect human health and the environment well
beyond urban boundaries. Yet, the health problems these pollutants present remain most acute in urban and suburban areas. 9 Ozone, carbon
monoxide, and particulate cause very serious public health problems that have been well recognized for a long time. Ozone
forms in the atmosphere from a reaction between volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. 10 Volatile organic compounds
include a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Nitrogen oxides, as discussed below, also play a role in acidifying ecosystems. Ozone
damages lung tissue. 11 It plays a role in triggering asthma attacks, sending thousands to the hospital every summer. It effects young children and
people engaged in heavy exercise especially severely. 12 Particulate pollution, or soot, consists of combinations of a wide variety of pollutants.
Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to formation of fine particulate, which is associated with the most serious health problems. 13
Studies link particulate to tens of thousands of annual premature deaths in the United States. 14 Like ozone it contributes to respiratory illness,
but it also seems to play a [*29] role in triggering heart attacks among the elderly. 15 The data suggest that fine particulate, which EPA did not
regulate explicitly until recently, plays a major role in these problems. 16 Health researchers have associated carbon monoxide with various types
of neurological symptoms, such as visual impairment, reduced work capacity, reduced manual dexterity, poor learning ability, and difficulty in
performing complex tasks. 17 The same pollution problems causing current urban health problems also contribute to long
lasting ecological problems. Ozone harms crops and trees. 18 These harms affect ecosystems and future generations. Similarly,
particulate precursors, including nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, contribute to acid rain, which is not easily reversible. To address these
problems, Agenda 21 recommends the adoption of national programs to reduce health risks from air pollution, including urban air pollution. 19
These programs are to include development of "appropriate pollution control technology . . . for the introduction of environmentally sound
production processes." 20 It calls for this development "on the basis of risk assessment and epidemiological research." 21 It also recommends
development of "air pollution control capacities in large cities emphasizing enforcement programs using monitoring networks as appropriate." 22
A second principle, the precautionary principle, provides support for the first. As stated in the Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle means
that "lack of full scientific certainty shall not [*30] be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation" when "there are threats of serious or irreversible damage." 23 Thus, lack of complete certainty about the adverse environmental and
human health effects of air pollutants does not, by itself, provide a reason for tolerating them. Put differently,governments need to
address air pollution on a precautionary basis to ensure that humans can life a healthy and productive life.

US Canada Relations key to F-35 Development
Ek and Fergusson 9/13
Canada-U.S. Relations Congressional Research Service; Carl Ek, Coordinator Specialist in International Relations
Ian F. Fergusson, Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance
September 13, 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf

In February 2002, Canada agreed to participate in the further development of the U.S.-led multinational Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF, or F-35) program, contributing $150 million over a 10year period. In December 2006, it was announced that the Canadian government
had committed an additional C$500 million for the development of the aircraft. Canada has reportedly agreed to consider purchasing
the new fighters to replace its own fleet of CF-18 planes when they are retired in 2017, and has earmarked nearly C$4 billion for the new
planes. In June 2007, the Department of National Defense announced plans to form a new office to evaluate Canadas future air defense
requirements. Canada appeared reap rewards from its participation; as of June 2007, Canadian firms had won 150 JSF contracts worth about $160
million. In addition, Canadian defense companies stand to benefit from the Pentagons plans to purchase additional F-35s. In July 2010, Defense
Minister MacKay confirmed that the government planned to spend C$9 billion on the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft. The opposition Liberals
criticized the decision, arguing that it should have been reviewed by parliament first, while the New Democrats maintained that the radar-evading
F-35 may be more airplane than Canada needs. In recent months, the media have also faulted the purchase, pointing to large
cost overruns. During a January 2011 visit to Canada, former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged Canada to
proceed with its planned procurement of the aircraft.2


F-35s key to hegemonycutting them would kill the aerospace industry and alliances
Donnelly, 2011 - director of the Center for Defense Studies [7/18/11Thomas, The Weekly Standard, An Extremely Immodest
Proposal, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/extremely-immodest-proposal_576967.html?, accessed 7/24/11//HK]

No doubt the legal and monetary obligations would be great, but the strategic, operational, and defense industrial
consequences of terminating the F-35 program would be catastrophic. To begin with, the F-35 is a multinational
program. To kill it would not only yank the rug out from under Americas closest friends and allies long-time partners
like Great Britain, Australia, and Canada, for example but destroy the prospects for closer partnerships in the Middle East and,
particularly, the Asia-Pacific, where Japan, Korea and Singapore are likely F-35 customers. And it would forestall the opportunity to
share a common fifth-generation aircraft with others like India, which could only turn to Russia or try to develop
such an aircraft on its own. Terminating the F-35 would be the clearest signal one can imagine, even beyond retreat from Iraq
or Afghanistan, that the United States no longer will assume the burdens of international security. Terminating the F-35,
or simply terminating the F-35B short take off vertical landing (or STOVL), would be fatal for the Marine Corps as a serious war
fighting service. The modernization of the Marines is already at risk; the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor transport turned out to be more difficult and more
expensive than anticipated, and last year the Obama administration cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which would have given the
Marines both enhanced amphibious assault capability but, even more important, more firepower and mobility ashore. The Marines AV-8B
Harriers a development of the original British jump jet are at the end of their service life, and the Marines F-18s cannot operate from Marine
amphibious assault ships. And theres hardly reason to have the big-deck amphibs without the F-35B. Conversely, operating a fifth-
generation aircraft would give the Marine Corps a new viability in small-scale contingencies think Libya and
allow them to contribute to more challenging anti-access, area-denial contingencies in East Asia or in an Iran-type
operation. Similar challenges face the Navy; without a fifth-generation aircraft, its own aircraft carriers are
increasingly irrelevant to high-end strike campaigns. Ending the F-35 program would also eviscerate what remains of the
American military aviation industry. Only two companies in the world have prime contractor experience in building
manned stealth aircraft, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Northrops B-2 bomber, designed in the late 1970s, was last
bought in 1997; only 21 of a planned 132 bombers. Northrop is no longer in that business. Lockheed built the F-117 Nighthawk, the first stealth
fighter, another 1970s design and also long out of production. Lockheed also builds the F-22 Raptor, but that program was ended (with just 187
of a planned 750 aircraft produced) two years ago and the last F-22 will soon roll off the line. The F-35 line itself was sized (and the workforce
planned) to build up to several hundred planes a year; under current plans, its not going to reach maximum efficiency. Indeed, the company may
have to lay off workers. Theres no other place for the designers, engineers, or management to go; the investment,
knowledge, and production experience to make stealthy, manned combat aircraft will rapidly disappear.

Declining hegemony causes global war it risks unstably multipolarity, Chinese aggression and
miscalculation empirically
Khalilzad, 2011 former director of planning at the Defense Department [Zalmay February 8, 2011 The Economy and National
Security Accessed July 29 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=1 The National Review Online]

If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing
of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers,
increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or
respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the
longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems
have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American
security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there
would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively,
in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states
would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to
emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval,
cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United
States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive
territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have
roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier
facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.

Economy Module

Beyond the Border solves US-Canada trade relations which are on the brink, solves several impacts
ECONOMY
A trillion dollars in annual trade and investment
Reduce taxes
Simplify regulations
8 million jobs
Main export market
Innovation
COMPETITIVENESS
NATURAL DISASTERS
TERRORISM
Technical standards, intelligence-sharing
DISEASE
Engler Manley 12/9
Beyond the Border plan would benefit U.S. and Canada By John Engler & John Manley Published: 12:47 PM 12/09/2011 | Updated: 12:48 PM
12/09/2011
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/09/beyond-the-border-plan-would-benefit-u-s-and-canada/#ixzz1gHP9hJgT

The U.S.-Canada partnership has delivered enormous benefits to both countries over many decades. The relationship
transcends economic issues; it is rooted in history, shared values, and common security. The 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and its successor, the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, defined a new era of cooperation between our
two countries and with Mexico. In the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. and Canadian officials fashioned the Smart Border Accord to expedite the
movement of goods and people in what continues to be the worlds biggest bilateral trading arrangement. We are partners in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and we share responsibility for the defense of the continent through the North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Through continued cooperation, we have built an enviable $1 trillion
annual trade and investment relationship. But no relationship can afford to stand still. Over the past decade, new
security layers, fees, rules, and inspections at the border have hampered two-way trade and reduced the efficiency of
North American supply chains. Meanwhile, both of our economies are facing intense pressures from international
competitors. To support jobs, strengthen our competitiveness and ensure future growth, it is vital to update our
bilateral partnership. In that spirit, we welcome this weeks announcement by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen
Harper of the Beyond the Border Action Plan a package of joint security measures and economic initiatives aimed
at improving border efficiency and further strengthening U.S.-Canada trade and investment. Why Beyond the Border?
For the simple reason that the best way to address threats to our common security is before they reach our shores.
Improved intelligence and information-sharing will enable U.S. and Canadian officials, working in close
cooperation, to respond faster and more effectively to a wide range of risks and hazards from natural disasters to
fraud, pandemics, and terrorist attacks while facilitating legitimate or low-risk trade. Coordinated U.S.-Canadian
technical standards for the collection, transmission, and matching of biometrics in real time will significantly
strengthen our shared ability to identify and counter the small number of travelers who mean harm. At the same time,
the introduction of an integrated Canada-U.S. entry-exit system will improve mobility and reduce costs to
taxpayers by eliminating the need for separate systems to track the comings and goings of citizens and other
travelers. For importers and exporters, Beyond the Border offers the prospect of reduced inspections and fewer delays in transporting goods.
One key is a proposed cargo pre-clearance program that would allow admissibility decisions for low-risk traders to be made before rail and truck
shipments actually reach the border. One of the best ways to foster innovation, enhance economic growth and promote job
creation is to simplify and better align Canadian and U.S. regulatory approaches. The joint Regulatory Cooperation Action
Plan announced this week seeks to lower costs for businesses and consumers, increase trade and investment, and help
U.S. and Canadian companies compete more effectively with new, strong rivals in global markets. The Action Plan
highlights four initial areas for progress: agriculture and food, transportation, health and consumer products, and environment. To a large degree,
geography is destiny. The United States and Canada are each others most important trading partner. Eight million jobs
in the United States depend on trade with Canada. Canada is the main export market for 35 U.S. states. With our
integrated supply chains, Canada and the United States do not merely sell goods and services to each other. We
build things together and sell our products in global markets. Our shared goal is to strategically position our two
economies so that we can take maximum advantage of new opportunities. The Beyond the Border and Regulatory
Cooperation action plans promise to create an even more robust economic relationship and strengthen our global
competitiveness to the benefit of our citizens on both sides of the border.

BTB increases Canadian tourism which is vital to the economy
Fox 12/10
Canada, U.S. Sign Historic Border Security, Trade Agreement Harper calls the measures the most significant step since NAFTA. By JIM
FOX-LEDGER CORRESPONDENT Published: Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 11:37 p.m. Last Modified: Saturday, December 10, 2011 at
11:37 p.m.
http://www.theledger.com/article/20111210/NEWS/111219954?Title=Canada-U-S-Sign-Historic-Border-Security-Trade-Agreement&tc=ar

The historic border security and trade agreement for Canada and the United States is intended to ease the movement
of people and goods between the two countries. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Beyond the Border measures
"represent the most significant step forward in Canada-U.S. co-operation since the North American Free Trade Agreement."
After their meeting in Washington, President Barack Obama encouraged more Canadians to come to the U.S. as "they spend
more money in America than any other visitors." The key goal is to streamline the process of crossing the border
through improved screening and security procedures. Included will be an entry-exit information-sharing system at land
borders to improve the ability to track people who are in Canada illegally or who overstay their visa. Critics of the deal
suggest Canadians might be giving up too much personal information that will be shared by both countries. Some 300,000 people a day
cross the border and trade between the two countries amounts to more than $1 billion daily. Canadians stayed 47.4-
million nights in Florida alone in 2009 and it was suggested they obtain NEXUS passes for "trusted travelers" to ease crossing the
border.




A Border that Works Perrin Beatty and Thomas J. Donohue, Financial Post Dec. 3, 2011 | Last Updated: Dec. 3, 2011 6:07 AM ET

More trade crosses the border between Canada and the United States than any other national border on earth.
Millions of Canadian and American jobs depend on the nearly half a trillion dollars in goods our countries exchange
each year. Without a modern, efficient, smoothly functioning border that speeds commerce and travel while
upholding our security, many of these jobs will be put at risk and we will squander new trade opportunities that lie
before us. Unfortunately, businesses on both sides point to the growing number of inspections, higher fees, longer wait
times, and more infrastructure constraints. Security personnel, meanwhile, complain they don't have the resources or
funding to sufficiently staff the borders under the current policies, and they are rightly frustrated by the lack of technology being
utilized. That's why we are eagerly awaiting new initiatives and commitments soon to be unveiled by President Barack Obama and
Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a U.S.-Canada bilateral agreement called "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter
Security and Economic Competitiveness." Businesses are counting on leaders to forge an agreement that is strategic in its
approach to security and ultimately speeds up cross-border trade and travel. The vision for a better border should
focus on smarter security. It must remove impediments that cause significant delays, hurt productivity, slow the
supply chain, and drag down our economic competitiveness, while still keeping us safe. To that end, we need to examine
what we're doing, how we're doing it, and how we can do it better. We already know what isn't working. Over the past decade, both
governments have responded to threats by adding new border mandates and hurdles - rather than replacing broken or
insufficient policies with ones that work. This thickening of the border has come at a great cost to trade, travel and
tourism, and the personal mobility of our people. We are developing a border that is more fitting for two wary
adversaries rather than the loyal friends and dedicated allies we are and will always be. The U.S. and Canadian chambers of
commerce have clearly and consistently pressed leaders to provide the citizens and businesses of our nations a border that works - and they
deserve nothing less. Our submission to the Beyond the Border Working Group over the summer outlined our proposals: enhance the benefits of
trusted trader and traveller programs; eliminate hassles for business travellers; align and simplify customs procedures by expanding pre-
clearance; modernize staffing models and business standards across government departments; and improve search and seizure capabilities to
better protect intellectual property rights. This agreement gives us the chance to fix what's broken. With commitment from
both sides, the Beyond the Border initiative can strengthen the security and efficiency of our borders. In the process,
we can spur economic growth and job creation in the U.S. and Canada and increase the competitiveness of both our
economies. Our countries have the experience, creativity, technology, and common sense to get this right. Expanding trade, travel and
other exchanges in both directions will create jobs, grow our economies, make us more globally competitive, and in
the process generate more government revenues without raising taxes. So let's get on with it.
Keystone XL Module

BTB key to development of the Keystone pipeline, which will supply energy to China
The Economist 12/11
The border two-step
A deal that attempts to assuage American fears about security and Canadian worries about obstacles to trade
Dec 11th 2011 | OTTAWA | from the print edition http://www.economist.com/node/21541421

Despite being Americas largest trade partner and energy supplier, Canada has a low profile in Washington, except
when it finds itself in the spotlight for the wrong reasons, such as being a source of so-called dirty oil from the Alberta tar sands. Mr Harper is
doing his best to hedge his bets. He has begun to cultivate various Asian countries, especially China. Snubbed by the
United States over the Keystone pipeline, he made a point of telling Chinas president that Canada is keen to supply
more energy to Asia. But geography is still a big part of Canadas destiny. Beyond the Border is important.


Cyber Security Module
BTB Key to Cyber Security
Payton 12/7
6 things to expect in new Canada-U.S. border deal By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Dec 7, 2011 5:23 AM
ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/07/pol-obama-harper-beyond-the-border.html
Co-operation on protecting critical and cyber infrastructure: One of four pillars in the initial announcement focused
on critical infrastructure and cyber security. Canada and the U.S. want to improve defences against cyber attacks and
make transportation and communication network security stronger. Former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson,
who was on the team that negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, wrote in Policy Options this month
to expect reinforcement against cyber threats to electrical grids, oil and gas pipelines, and the circuitry for
everything from ATM transactions to air traffic control.

Weak cyber defense makes accidental launch inevitable
Blair 8
(Center for Defense Information and World Security Institute, http://disarmament.nrpa.no/wp-
content/uploads/2008/02/Paper_Blair.pdf)

There are a host of reasons why removing the hair-trigger on their missiles is an urgent priority. Beyond the familiar
arguments about the inherent danger of accidental and unauthorized nuclear attack lurk shadowy new threats such as
cybernetic threats to the nuclear command and warning systems. The nuclear command systems today operate in an
intense information battleground on which more than 20 nations including Russia, China, and North Korea have
developed dedicated computer attack programs. These programs deploy viruses to disable, confuse, and delay
nuclear command and warning processes in other nations. At the brink of conflict, nuclear command and warning
networks around the world may be besieged by electronic intruders whose onslaught degrades the coherence and
rationality of nuclear decision-making. The potential for perverse consequences with computer-launched weapons
on hair-trigger is clear. Other information warfare programs are designed to infiltrate and collect information on, for example, the schedule of the movement of nuclear warheads
during peacetime. Hacking operations of these sorts are increasing exponentially as the militaries of the world increasingly depend on computer and communications networks. The number of
attempts by outside hostile actors to break into Defense Department networks has surged by 10-fold in the past couple of years. Hostile intrusion attempts against Pentagon computer systems
now run in the neighborhood of 1,000 per day. (China is especially active.)
Among the possible terrorist threats posed by cyber-attack: terrorists could spoof early warning sensors and generate false alarms that
precipitate nuclear overreactions; or terrorists may get inside the command and communications networks
controlling nuclear forces. They might gain information useful to interdicting and capturing weapons, or
unauthorized actors might even discover ways to inject messages into the circuits.5 Clearly, keeping nuclear forces
ready to fly instantaneously upon receipt of a short stream of computer signals carries real risk.

Causes extinction
News Blaze 9
Organisations Worldwide Urge Obama, Medvedev: Take-Weapons Off Alert,
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090706130809zzzz.nb/topstory.html
In a letter faxed last week to Presidents Obama and Medvedev, nuclear disarmament organisations worldwide have
urged Russia and the US to negotiate to lower the state of operational readiness of their nuclear weapons systems.
Presidents Obama and Medvedev are due to meet on Monday 6 to 8th July. The letter was coordinated by PND
Nuclear Flashpoints John Hallam, who together with the Association of World Citizens Doug Mattern, and nuclear
weapons expert Steven Starr, coordinated an appeal by 44 nobel prizewinners that resulted in resolutions in the UN
General Assembly in 2007 and 2008 calling for nuclear weapons to be taken off quick - launch status. (Mr Steven
Starr, now scientific adviser to Physicians for Social Responsibility will be speaking on Hiroshima Day (6Aug) in
Sydney) According to Mr Hallam: "When Presidents Obama and Medvedev meet on Monday, President Obama will
have an opportunity to make good on his election promise to negotiate with Russia to take US and Russian nuclear
weapons off high - alert, a step that will quite literally 'take the apocalypse off the agenda'. There are still roughly
2000 nuclear weapons in the 23,000 nuclear weapons still held by the US and Russia, that are able to be launched in
less than two minutes. The launch of these weapons would, still, terminate civilisation and possibly end the human
race.

Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid, crushing the economy
Examiner, 11/8/11, http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/dhs-napolitano-s-riddles-at-cyber-
security-event-exposed

November 08, 2011 The United States Department of Homeland Security still hasn't come to
terms with the seriousness of the Nation's cyber-security vulnerabilities. Secretary Napolitano
acknowledged last month that hackers have come close several times to shutting down
elements of the nations infrastructure. Napolitano refused to ellaborate on exactly which of the
nations infrastructure was targeted, but research by a former CIA officer which reveals serious
gaps in the nation's federal prison system may provide clues.
Napolitano told an audience at a cyber-security event in Washington, D.C. that cyber-attacks on financial systems,
transportation and "things of those sorts" numbered in the thousands. She said the Department's networks have been
probed by adversaries attempting to breach systems, however would not discuss the specifics of the intrusion.
Advertisement
The network intrusion that shuts down the nations critical infrastructure could cause loss of life but also a huge
economic loss, Napolitano said at a cybersecurity event sponsored by the Washington Post. Weve seen attempts
on Wall Street, transportation systems, things of those sorts.
The Department's current cybersecurity initiatives fail to address growing concern in national defense circles. A
former CIA officer presented research findings of a study which revealed serious gaps in security in the nation's
federal prison system. The results delivered directly to federal agencies, demonstrated how hackers could overload
the circuits in prison doors, springing them permanently open. Officials were briefed at the CIA headquarters at
Langley to allow time to evaluate and respond to the threat.

Former National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center Director Sean P. McGurk, who left in
September, confirmed to the Washington Times "we validated the researchers" [claims] that the ICS software and
controllers could remotely reprogrammed and manipulated.
In no case did we ever not find connections, McGurk said. They were always there.
During his first month in office, President Obama issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 in January
2008, which established the Comprehensive National Cyber Initiative (CNCI). The first of its kind in the Nation's
history, the Initiative was meant to significantly improve cyber security of and between the DHS, the Department of
Defense, FBI, and Intelligence Community while providing an integrated strategy and action plan to improve cyber
security across federal, military and civilian networks.

The same month, a CIA analyst reportedly informed U.S. utilities that hackers had infiltrated electric companies in
several locations outside the U.S. In at least one case, they had managed to shut off power to multiple cities.

A panel of experts commissioned by Congress in 2009 concluded that such an attack would halt banking,
transportation, food, water and emergency services and "might result in defeat of our military forces."
"We are not well-protected at all," said Michael Frankel, the executive director of the commission.