February Politics Update

Iran Sanctions

Topshelf

1NC
Sanctions on Iran are coming. Obama is keeping
Democrats in line, but its on the brink.
Wong, 1/29 [Kristina, 1/29/15, political correspondent for the Hill, Iran

Sanctions Bill Passes Senate Panel, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/231130iran-sanctions-bill-passes-senate-panel]

Members of the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday passed a bill that
would impose sanctions on Iran if a comprehensive agreement to roll back its
nuclear program is not reached by June 30. The bill , co-authored by Sens.
Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), passed in the committee by
an 18-4 vote. All 12 Republicans on the committee voted for the bill, as did
six Democrats. The Democrats that voted for the bill included Sens.
Menendez, Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mark R. Warner (DVa.) Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.). Schumer called the
bill "a good step forward." "If they don't come to a tough strong
agreement...there will be further sanctions and further actions," he said.
Democrats who voted against included Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the
committees ranking member, Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The bill, which is softer than one proposed last
year by Kirk and Menendez, would allow the president to waive sanctions
indefinitely for 30 days at a time. Last years bill garnered 17 Democratic cosponsors, but Democratic support for the current bill was not clear after
President Obama threatened during his State of the Union address to veto the
bill. The administration argues any sanctions legislation passed before June
30 would derail the talks by empowering hardliners in Iran who oppose a
deal, and break the cohesion among negotiators from the U.S. and its allies.
Menendez, however, kept together a coalition of 10 Democrats who support
the bill, promising the White House not to support a vote on the bill before
March 24, by when negotiators agreed to reach a framework agreement. Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said that promise would effectively delay a vote on the
Senate floor of the vote until then. "All of us understand it's not going to be
voted on before March 24," he said. Brown urged lawmakers to wait until June
30 the negotiators deadline for an agreement. "Congress should have the
collective patience to wait until the end of June to see whether our
negotiators can resolve the nuclear issue with Iran through diplomacy,"
Brown said. "Once that is determined, Congress and the president will
unquestionably join hands in applying greater pressure," he added. The
passage of the bill in committee, however, is a sign that Democrats are
running out of patience. With 54 Republicans in the Senate, Democratic
support of the bill is necessary to reach a veto-proof majority of 67 votes.

<<Insert Link Here>>

Sanctions lead to Iranian nukes
Vaez, 1/28 [Ali, 1/28/15, International Crisis Groups senior Iran analyst,
Why New Iran Sanctions Bid Has Split Washington,

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/28/why-new-iran-sanctions-bidhas-split-washington.html]
New sanctions imposed by Washington at this stage will be seized upon by a
substantial faction of the Iranian leadership that mistrusts Western intentions
and opposes any concessions on the nuclear issue. If such measures are
passed over the objections of the White House, they will exacerbate Iranian
doubts in Obamas ability to deliver on sanctions relief that would be part of a
final nuclear deal. And just as backers of new sanctions measures say their
goal is to boost U.S. leverage in talks with Iran, m any in Tehran believe that
expanding its nuclear work creates leverage for Iran . In a prospective
retaliatory move, 205 members of Irans parliament are preparing legislation
that would authorize the government to dramatically ratchet up uraniumenrichment levels in the event of new U.S. sanctions. While some members of
Congress clearly seek to scuttle diplomacy with Iran, others desire a
compromise, believing that the current talks are the best and maybe last
chance to peacefully resolve a crucial national security issue. But they
would like to see a good deal. Although Menendez has postponed his
sanctions push until after the March 24 deadline, what the White House
considers a bad idea in January will likely still be a bad idea in March. Sens.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., have proposed that
Congress signal its intention without pre-emptively passing new sanctions.
Others suggest working with the White House on legislation that could be
introduced if talks fail to reach an agreement by July 1. One lesson from the
Iran sanctions issue is how the rigidity of congressional sanctions has
encumbered U.S. negotiators. Theyre far easier to impose than lift, which can
hinder diplomacy. Given the effectiveness of financial sanctions, some have
argued that Congress could make sanctions a smarter and more responsive
weapon by increasingly delegating to the Treasury Department the authority
to levy, ease and most important repeal sanctions. But no such changes
are likely be enacted in time to ease the challenges posed by combining
sanctions and diplomacy with Iran.

Iran proliferation ensnares Israel-Iran into nuclear war

through proxies
Robb 12

(Charles, B.A. from the University of WisconsinMadison, J.D. at the University of Virginia Law
School, Charles Wald, Master of Political Science degree in international relations, Troy State University,
Bipartisan Policy Center Board Member The Price of Inaction: Analysis of Energy and Economic Effects of a
Nuclear Iran, October 10th, 2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/PriceofInaction.pdf)

A nuclear Iran wouldimmediatelyencounter another nuclear stateeven if an undeclared onein the region:
Israel. Compared with the relative stability of the Cold War, an initial stalemate between Israel and Iran would be highly precarious at best
and would also threaten the entirety of Gulf exports, although for a more limited duration. Were Iran to become nuclear, the
frequency ofcrises and proxy conflicts between Iran and Israel would likely increase, as wouldthe
probability ofsuchconfrontations spiraling into a nuclear exchange , with
horrendous humanitarian consequences. There could be an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange

through miscalc ulation

and/or miscommunication. There could also be a calculated nuclear exchange, as the Israeli and Iranian sides would each have incentives to
strike the other first. Tehran would likely have the ability to produce only a small handful of weapons, whereas Israel is already estimated to
possess more than 100 devices, including thermonuclear warheads far beyond the destructive power of any Iranian fission weapon. Under

Irans vulnerability to a bolt-from-the-blueIsraeli nuclearstrike

wouldactuallyincrease its incentive to launch its own nuclear attack , lest its arsenal be
obliterated.Israels smallterritorialsize reduces the survivability of its second-strike capability and,
such circumstances,

Israeli leaders
might feel the need to act preventatively to eliminate the Iranian arsenal before it can be used against them, just as
more importantly, the survivability of the country itself, despite its vastly larger and more advanced arsenal. Thus,

American military planners contemplated taking out the fledgling Soviet arsenal early in the Cold War, except that as a much smaller country
Israel has far less room for maneuver. Xxvi

2NC OV
Republicans want sanctions on Iran, and a lot of hawkish
Democrats are willing to back them. Only Obama is
keeping the more moderate Democrats in line. The plan
pushes the few votes needed over the edge to create a
veto-proof majority. Sanctions derail negotiations with
Iran as hardliners in Tehran see them as an excuse to not
give in. That leads to increased nuclear ambitions in Iran,
which in turn creates Iranian proliferation. The impact is
extinction.
Outweighs and turns the case:
1- Nuclear war through Iranian proliferation is the most
likely scenario for nuclear conflict. Robb indicates that
nuclear ambitions from Iran provoke Israel into a series of
proxy conflicts that are the most likely scenario for
miscalculation. Robb also indicates that this PERCEIVED
threat by the Iranians would aggravate Israel to the point
that, due to their reduced second-strike capacity, they are
forced to act pre-emptively.

2NC UQ Wall
Obama has gained influence over his party over Iran
sanctions, but he is struggling to maintain control
Welsh 1/29 [Teresa, 1/29/15, foreign affairs reporter for US News, Senate Banking Committee
Advances Iran Sanctions Bill, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/29/senate-bankingcommittee-advances-iran-sanctions-bill]

The Senate Banking Committee advanced a bill Thursday that would impose
additional sanctions on Iran if no nuclear agreement is reached by the end of
June, but its fate on the Senate floor is expected to depend on the progress of
ongoing negotiations. The vote was 18-4 to send the bill to the Senate floor,
with Democrats representing all four in opposition. The bill, offered by
Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of
New Jersey, has strong bipartisan support in the committee , where six
Democrats joined all 12 Republicans in approving the measure. Menendez
voted in favor of his own bill but repeated his opposition to moving it
immediately to the Senate floor. I want to reiterate my position along with
other Democrats that have joined with me, Menendez said, I have no
intention of moving forward and supporting it on the floor if it is brought
before the March 24 deadline to understand whether an agreement is
possible and what that agreement would look like. Menendez and nine other
senators wrote a letter to President Barack Obama on Tuesday stating that ,
while they are concerned about the success of negotiations, they will not vote
on the bill on the floor before the negotiating deadline. Putting the brakes on
the legislation gave a political victory to the President Barack Obama, whose
Democratic Party has not united behind him in support of continued talks.

Republicans dont yet have enough votes for a veto-proof

majority, but they are close
Zengerle, 1/29 [Patricia, 1/29/15, Congressional Correspondent for
Reuters, U.S. Senate panel advances Iran sanctions bill,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/us-iran-nuclear-congressidUSKBN0L220N20150129]
(Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Banking Committee voted 18-4 on Thursday to
advance a bill that would toughen sanctions on Iran if international
negotiators fail to reach an agreement on Tehran's nuclear program by the
end of June. However, the bill is not expected to come up for a vote in the full
Senate until at least March 24. Ten Democrats, including the measure's coauthor, Senator Robert Menendez, announced an agreement earlier this week
to hold off for two months to allow time to reach a diplomatic solution.
Republicans would need those votes to pass the bill, and even more votes to
override a veto threatened by Democratic President Barack Obama, who has
called the measure a threat to the continuing nuclear talks with Iran.

SanctionsNukes
Sanctions will encourage Iran to restart its Nuclear
Activities.
RFE 2-3-15

(Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty)(RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries
where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. We provide what many people
cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate, Iran Drafts Law To
Resume Nuclear Activities In Response To Sanctions http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-nuclear-unitedstates-draft-law-sanctions/26828441.html)

Irans parliament voted on February 3 to speed up discussions of a

motion that asks the government to resume all its nuclear activities
if fresh sanctions are passed by the United States. Out of 205
lawmakers present, 173 voted in favor of giving the motion an
emergency status, Iranian news agencies reported. It wasnt clear from the

reports when the discussions would resume. The draft bill says that in the event of fresh U.S. sanctions,
Iran is obliged to immediately resume all nuclear activities that have been frozen in exchange of sanctions
relief under the Geneva interim nuclear deal Tehran reached with world powers in 2013. It says that Iran
should activate its uranium enrichment centers without any restrictions on the type and number of
centrifuges and the amount of enriched uranium under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT). It also says that Iran would accelerate construction and operation of its controversial Arak
heavy-water reactor. Iran and the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia are
negotiating for a lasting agreement that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
After missing two self-imposed deadlines last year, the six powers and Iran agreed to seek a political
framework agreement by March and a comprehensive deal by June 30. Last week, the U.S. Senate Banking
Committee approved a draft bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran if there is no deal by the end of
June. The bill is not expected to come for a vote in the full Senate until at least late next month, after a
group of senators agreed to hold off for two months to allow time for a diplomatic solution to be reached.
U.S. President Barack Obama has warned that he would veto any bill that would impose new sanctions on
Iran. Obama and other administration officials have warned that new sanctions could damage the ongoing

The chairman of
the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission,
Alaeddin Boroujerdi, was quoted as saying on February 3 that "any
new decision by the U.S. Congress [to impose sanctions] which will
of course be a violation of the Geneva agreement will face the
Iranian parliament's serious reaction. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
said last week that new sanctions would lead to a collapse of the
talks.
negotiations with Iran. Iranian officials have also warned against new sanctions.

Sanctions Fail
Sanctions are empirically unsuccessful
Vaez, 1/28 [Ali, 1/28/15, International Crisis Groups senior Iran analyst,
Why New Iran Sanctions Bid Has Split Washington,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/28/why-new-iran-sanctions-bidhas-split-washington.html]
The key question for members of Congress is, What are new sanctions
designed to achieve? The standard argument is that sanctions are the
leverage that forced Iran to the negotiating table and escalating them
therefore boosts Western leverage. But there were no nuclear-related
sanctions in force when the same Iranian negotiators first came to the table
from 2003 to 2005 and offered the West more attractive terms back then
than they are doing now under sanctions pressure. Nor is it clear how
sanctions pressure alters Iranian behavior. It is difficult to say with any
certainty whether Tehran would have gone farther in advancing its nuclear
program in the absence of sanctions pressure, but theres no question that
the period of escalating sanctions has coincided with steady advances in
Irans nuclear program. The focus in Congress appears to be on the economic
pain inflicted on Iran by coercive diplomacy, but the correlation between that
pain and desired gains is far from clearly established. And those familiar with
the Islamic Republics political culture warn that Irans negotiators are likely
to be less inclined to show flexibility when a metaphorical gun is held to their
heads, lest they face the potentially fatal accusation back home of
compromising under duress.

Laundry List Impact

Iran sanctions cause a laundry list of impacts;
international law, war, econ (this card rules)
Afrasiabi, 2/1 [Kaveh, 2/1/15, PhD in Political Science from Boston

University, US Congress Iran Sanctions Bill Flawed,

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/01/395704/US-Congress-Iran-sanctionsbill-flawed]
By all accounts, this bill's real intention is to torpedo the nuclear talks and
thwart diplomacy under the guise of "bolstering" US diplomacy at the table. It
has been questioned by various US editorials as a "bad policy" that should be
avoided -- for good reasons since if adopted and survives a White House veto,
this bill not only damages the prospects for a 'win-win' resolution of the Iran
nuclear standoff, it will also harm US's own interests. Briefly, there are
several flaws in it that deserve attention. These are: 1. The bill violates the
terms of the Geneva agreement: Under this agreement, both US and Europe
have pledged to refrain from imposing new sanctions on Iran during the
period of the agreement. Therefore, the March ultimatum given by the bill's
sponsors represents a clear negation of US's pledge; 2. The bill imposes the
arbitrary demand for the "dismantling" of Iran's uranium enrichment and
heavy water production facility in Arak. There is absolutely no legal basis for
this demand and is contrary to the terms of the Geneva agreement that
acknowledges Iran's right to enrich uranium, albeit under the agreed-upon
scope of its "practical needs." With respect to the Arak reactor, both sides
have made substantial progress in terms of certain modifications that would
address the concerns about it, given the importance of the reactor for Iran's
medical and other civilian needs. Iran has pledged not to set up a
reprocessing plant, without which it is impossible to separate plutonium (for
weapons purposes). 3. The bill asks the president to certify that Iran does not
conduct any missile tests beyond the range of 500 kilometers. This demand,
with respect to Iran's conventional military power and technology, is also
without any legal foundation and arbitrary, aiming to dispossess Iran of an
important arsenal of its national defense. 4. The bill calls for tough penalties
on countries that refuse to substantially reduce their oil imports from Iran.
This means that China, India, and other countries that are Iran's energy
partners, will find themselves in the unwanted situation of a third party,
namely the US, dictating their energy policies. Without doubt, this would
cause tensions between US and those countries, which might retaliate
against the US if subjected to such aggressive bullying by their American
trade partners. 5. The bill sets up various scenarios for US's unilateral
violation of a final agreement, including acts of terrorism against the US by
Iran or Iran's 'proxies'. As a result, the bar has been set very low, e.g., an
attack attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Lebanons Hezbollah, which is close
to Iran, would suffice to lead the US to declare the final agreement null and
void. 6. The bill's call for the re-imposition of Iran sanctions in the event of a
unilateral decision by the US that Iran has violated the long list of prohibited
activities mentioned in the bill is also arbitrary and unmindful of the likely
provisions of the final agreement, similar to the interim agreement, regarding
a 'joint commission' to deal with the issues of implementation. In other

words, any unilateral US decision permitted under this bill would put the US
at odds with the other nations in the "5 +1" group, i.e., US, France, Britain,
Russia, China and Germany. Unfortunately, the hawkish US politicians are
lagging behind the reality and ignorant of the structural limits imposed on US
unilateralism by the multilateral framework. 7. The bill explicitly calls for a
"US support" for Israel in case the Zionist entity launches a strike against
Iran's nuclear facilities. This is highly irresponsible, and dangerous, on the
part of US lawmakers, who ought to know better the importance of abiding by
international law and UN Charter, which expressly forbids unprovoked attacks
against another country. Even if the nuclear talks fail, no country has the
right to attack Iran, which will be deemed by the international community as
a condemnable transgression of international law. Even the US's own
intelligence community has confirmed that Iran's nuclear program is
peaceful, not to mention repeated such confirmations by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as a result of which an illegal and unprovoked
attack on Iran would, logically speaking, trigger UN Security Council
condemnation under Chapter VII, pertaining to international peace and
security. In the event that the US would scuttle action at the Security
Council, such a move would only isolate the US in the international
community and project a 'rogue' image that would be contrary to US's own
national interests. This is not to mention Iran's retaliation against any such
attacks and the profound unwanted regional and global implications (such as
on world economy) triggered in a war scenario -- that has been toyed with in
the US Congress through this proposed legislation.

Iranian NukesExtinction
Israeli strikes escalate- success irrelevant

Goldberg 10 (Jeffrey Goldberg, National correspondent for the Atlantic, The Point of No Return,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/, September 2010)
When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research
center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after
they depart en masse from their bases across Israel

regardless of whether they succeed

in

destroying Irans centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Irans nuclear program

theystand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of spark ing lethal reprisals , and even a

full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs
and Americans as well; of

creating a crisis

significance and complexity; of

for Barack Obama

rupturing relations

that will dwarf Afghanistanin

between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israels only

meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of

causing the price

of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the
autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them
targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israels
conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

**Aff Answers**

Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link

Democrats are united behind Obama against sanctions
Reuters, 2/1 [2/1/15, "Why new sanctions against Iran are looking less
likely" http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/01/why-new-sanctionsagainst-iran-are-looking-less-likely/]
A few weeks ago, new sanctions on Iran were on the fast track in the new
Republican Senate. The measure would, at a minimum, undermine the
nuclear talks, at most cause their collapse. On paper, Obama was heavily
outgunned. Historically, no piece of legislation passes as easily in Congress
as an Iran sanctions bill. The Republican-controlled Congress has no time or
patience for either Obama or his chats with Iranian nuclear negotiators, so
sabotaging the talks and depriving the president of a much needed foreign
policy success was a no-brainer. And mindful of Israeli pressure in favor of
sanctions, many Democratic lawmakers would likely abandon the president
and side with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead, it was
predicted. But Obama stood firm. Rather than seek a compromise with the
Senate, he threatened a veto and warned them about the consequences of
sabotaging the talks. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I
intend to stay true to that wisdom, he said. The threat worked. As of today, only
two Democratic senators have co-sponsored the new sanctions bill.
Unless sanctions supporters manage to get at least 14 Democrats to
commit to the measure, they cannot override Obamas veto and will
only embarrass themselves trying. Perhaps more importantly,
senators who supported a similar measure last year and who have
historically been very close to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committees position on Iran, such as Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and
Cory Booker (D-NJ), have refrained from sponsoring the bill. The
president strongly believes it would gravely harm negotiations, and
therefore, I am willing to give him more time before supporting this
bill, Gillibrand told CNN. Even more shocking, perhaps, was Hillary Clintons full backing of

Obama in this contest. In the midst of preparations for her presumed 2016 presidential run, Hillary came
out against both AIPAC and Netanyahu and called the sanctions bill a very serious strategic error.
Undoubtedly, the issue took on an even greater partisan dimension when House Speaker John Boehner
secretly invited Netanyahu to address congress on this matter, which in turn added pressure on Clinton to
close ranks with Obama. But for Clinton to come out and so strongly back Obama at a time when she has
sought to distance herself from his foreign policy cannot be explained solely by partisan solidarity.
Rather, Obama has succeeded in changing the underlying politics of the matter. The debate over Iran
sanctions is no longer about Iran, but about war with Iran. Diplomacy with Iran is the best way of avoiding
both a nuclear Iran, and bombing Iran. Any measure that undermines diplomacy, such as new sanctions,
automatically enhances the risk of war. Passing sanctions on Iran used to be the safest political move in
Congress. But today, imposing sanctions means supporting war, which is a move that carries a tremendous
political cost. So high that Hillary Clinton chose to come out against AIPAC and Netanyahu instead. This is

authority
remains in the hands of Congress. But what the recent wrangling in
Congress shows is that Obama can redefine what is politically
feasible and unfeasible. Two years ago, anyone who suggested that
Congress would fail to impose new sanctions on Iran would be lucky
not to be committed to a mental institution. Those advocating
diplomacy over sanctions were in the political margins. Today,
diplomacy is the policy, while sanctions proponents are considered
extremists.
not to suggest that Obama has taken control over the process of lifting sanctions. That

No chance of a veto proof majorityMenendez stepped

back, the GOP is divided, Obamas popularity is up, and
dems are rallying
Pianin and Garver 1/29 [1-29-2015, Eric Pianin and Rob Garver, Washington Editor and
D.C. Bureau Chief Eric Pianin is a veteran journalist who has covered the federal government,
congressional budget and tax issues, and national politics. He spent over 25 years at The Washington Post,
"Obamas Veto Pen Mightier Than GOP Swords", Fiscal Times,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/29/Obamas-Veto-Pen-Mightier-GOP-Swords]

There was a lot of brave talk among Senate Democrats as well as

Republicans of slapping new economic sanctions on Iran even before the
Obama administration completed its latest round of negotiations on restraining Tehrans nuclear program. But that
was before President Obama renewed his threat to veto the
legislation during his State of the Union address last week. There are no guarantees
negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran, Obama said in the speech. But
new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails alienating
America from its allies and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. On Tuesday, Sen. Robert

Menendez

(NJ),

the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, and nine other influential Democrats backed down

telling

Obama they would hold off until after a late-March deadline for the U.S. and Iran to complete work on the agreement.
Congressional leaders like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker of Tennessee may eventually come back

Obama has scored a

tactical victory that buys State Department negotiators time.
Obamas veto strategy has been paying other dividends in shaping
the legislative agenda in the early going of the 114th Congress, much to the chagrin of many
conservatives. Emboldened by his rising approval rating and divisions
within the GOP, the president who vetoed only two minor bills up
until now is threatening to veto at least five others. House Republicans
with tough sanctions legislation if Obamas negotiating team falls short. But for now,

threatened to use the Dept. of Homeland Security annual spending bill to block implementation of Obamas executive
order protecting nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation. They still may move ahead on that plan to placate
angry conservatives and Tea Party members. But after Obamas veto threat, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other GOP
members are exploring another way to take the president to court again to challenge the constitutionality of his executive
action. And prospects for passage of legislation to bypass Obama and force the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline
project are fading fast: The House-passed legislation has been mired in a two-week debate on the Senate floor. Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may eventually produce a bill that could overcome a presidential veto in the
Senate, some observers say. But the legislation has been loaded with so many amendments to placate Republican and
Democratic senators that Boehner may have trouble achieving final passage of the bill on the House floor much less
amassing the 290 votes hed need to override a veto. Aides to Republican lawmakers take strong exception to any
suggestion Obama is having his way with his veto threat. We are considering litigation in addition to legislative options
like the DHS bill not in place of them, said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner. I also dont agree with your
assessment on the Keystone pipeline or Iran. Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesman, noted, We had the same number of
supporters/co-sponsors on Keystone before the veto threat as after. Menendez has flipped on Iran. And the battle lines on
immigration were drawn long ago. Yet others see GOP reaction to Obamas veto threats quite differently. The

president is doing exactly what youd expect him to do , said Dan Holler,
communications director for Heritage Action, an influential conservative lobbying group associated with the Heritage
Foundation. "Hes waiting for Republicans to step up and challenge him on something. But if you look at the past few
years, you are hard pressed to find a time when the Republican Party made a hard challenge to what the president is
doing. Holler added, There

is a mystique around the presidency ... that if he

draws a line in the sand there is no way of overcoming it. In many ways,
Congress has played into this notion that the executive branch is the
superior branch, not a coequal branch. If Senate Republicans were to draw a line in the sand
right now, the president would laugh at them, because they havent shown a willingness to
defend their turf. Moreover, with many insiders warning of the dangers of the House GOP tampering with
DHSs operating budget amid global terrorist threats, All the signs point to them not being
willing to take on this fight right now, Holler said. John Zogby, a prominent pollster and
political analyst, said the presidents rising approval rating approaching 50
percent right now has given him added leverage. I cant say it any better than a

The presidents
numbers are the only ones going up and its because he is getting
increased support from liberals who see he is acting decisively and
liberated by not having to run again. William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill
Clinton, said, Democrats, even dissenting Democrats, are less eager to
confront the president of their own party than the Republicans are .
millennial pop singer named Meghan Trainor, said Zogby. Its all about the base.

Because any meaningful confrontation between Congress and the president has to involve a veto override, if Democrats

then the president can block

most things he doesnt want from happening.
who may be dissenting are unwilling to join the opposition at this point,

Sanctions Good
Sanctions are key to effective negotiations
Keinon, 1/26 [Herb, 1/26/15, BA in Political Science from the University of
Colorado, Boulder, Nuclear Deal Will Not Be Reached Due to Iran's
Intransigence, Senior Diplomatic Official Says, http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Nuclear-deal-will-not-be-reached-due-to-Irans-intransigence-seniordiplomatic-official-says-389027]
It is unlikely the world powers and Iran will reach a nuclear agreement before
the end of March, a senior diplomatic official said Monday, adding that at this
point much is dependent on the difficult decision the Iranians will have to
make. According to the official, significant differences remain between Iran
and the P5+1, and it is difficult to see how it will be possible to overcome the
Iranian demand for a removal of all the sanctions. He said that no one can
say with certainty whether an agreement will be signed in the near future.
There has still not been a deep Iranian change regarding the concessions
that can bring them to an agreement, the official said. We are not seeing a
strategic decision regarding concessions by [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali]
Khamenei, the official said. The official said that a crisis in the talks could
definitely sharpen the dilemma for the Iranians and help get to an
agreement under better conditions. Last week Mossad head Tamir Pardo told
a group of visiting senators led by John McCain that ratcheting up sanctions
on Iran would be tantamount to throwing a grenade into a room in the
sense that it could create a temporary crisis in the negotiations at the end of
which talks would resume under improved conditions. According to the
senior diplomatic official, a combination of diplomatic pressure and economic
leverage increases the chances for better results in the negotiations. He said
that placing pressure on Iran does not guarantee that an agreement will be
reached, but the lack of pressure will ensure that there would not be an
agreement.

Sanctions are key to good faith talks with Iran

AIPAC, 11/25 [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, 11/25/14, Increase the Pressure to
Give Negotiations a Chance, http://iraninfocus.aipac.org/learn/increase-the-pressure-to-give-negotiationsa-chance/]

After more than a year of intensive diplomacy and limited sanctions relief, the
time has come to strengthen sanctions on Iran. Despite significant
concessions by the P5+1 which would have allowed Iran to maintain most
of its nuclear infrastructure Tehran still refuses to take the steps needed to
reach a good deal. Increased pressure offers the best chance to persuade
Tehran to abandon its quest for a nuclear weapons capability. The Obama
Administration should toughen sanctions enforcement , and Congress should
quickly take up new bipartisan sanctions legislation. More pressure is needed
to increase the leverage on Iran. Iran came to the negotiations in large
measure because U.S.-led sanctions were beginning to cripple the Iranian
economy. A combination of sanctions relief and improved Iranian economic
management reduced the pressure on Tehran to negotiate in good faith and
accept a good deal. Tougher enforcement of existing sanctions,

accompanied by prospective new bipartisan sanctions, will force Iran to

confront a decision between compromise and economic pain. Without new
pressure, Iran is unlikely to modify its course. It will continue its efforts to
circumvent sanctions, divide the international coalition and continue
advancing its nuclear program.

Sanctions Inevitable
Sanctions will pass nowbroad bipartisan support
Bennett 1-29 [John T., Senior Congressional Reporter, Defense Times; Defense
Times http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/congress/2015/01/29/iran-sanctionsnuclear-weapons-obama/22524903/]

A Senate committee on Thursday easily approved legislation that would

impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran if ongoing talks about its nuclear
arms program remain stalled. The Banking Committee, in a bipartisan 18-4
vote, approved a new Iran sanctions bill crafted by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
Senators from both panels spoke in support of the legislation, arguing the threat of new economic penalties will cause Iranian officials to take the ongoing "P5+1 talks"
more seriously. "Sanctions are what got Iran to the table," the Senate's No. 3 Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, said. "If they don't come to a strong deal that
prevents a nuclear Iran, period, there will be additional sanctions by this body." Menendez and other Democrats are pushing Republican chamber leaders to put off a vote
until at least March 24, essentially giving Iranian negotiators two months to agree to concessions being pushed by the United States and other Western countries. The
Senate's agenda beyond a weeklong recess that starts on Feb. 16 is unclear. For the latest national security news from Capitol Hill, go to CongressWatch Senate Majority
Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has only said that the chamber will next take up a Department of Homeland Security funding measure after it completes work on a
Keystone XL Pipeline bill. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also a Banking Committee member, called the measure "a placeholder"

Hawkish Republicans like new Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a

former House member, say Washington needs to do something as soon as
possible to put more pressure on Tehran. In fact, Cotton made his first splash since moving across the Capitol complex,
that McConnell could call up at any time.

saying, "I would rather see these negotiations end." The Kirk-Menendez bill would "increase the current congressional oversight of the negotiations and require the
administration to formally submit any new nuclear agreement text or extension to Congress within five days." Schumer called that "a very good check" on the White
House's deal, adding "it must be done carefully." The measure would green-light new sanctions and reinstitute ones waived during the "P5+1" talks only if a June 30
deadline for a deal with Iran passes with no such pact. The bill, known informally on Capitol Hill as "Kirk-Menendez," would install new sanctions on Iran, including ones to
"close loopholes in existing petroleum sanctions, enhance sanctions on Iran's oil trade and financial transactions, and impose further sanctions on Iran's senior government
officials, family members and other individuals," according to a summary of the legislation. The panel approved, 18-4, an amendment offered by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.,
that would make it the sense of the Congress that lawmakers should vote on any potential deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran. The Kirk-Menendez sanctions
would be implemented one by one over several months. The committee killed, 10-12, an amendment from Cotton that would have made them all binding on July 6.

Menendez wants to wait at least two months before the full Senate votes on
the bill. But he stressed that if Iranian officials continue to stall, the chamber
should vote on his bill. To him, if a vote is held at the right time, "I believe it
would have broad bipartisan support."

No Deal
Sanctions are irrelevant; another bill will pass that has
the same effect but wont derail negotiations. And, these
trade off with the original sanctions
Hudson, 1/21 [John, 1/12/15, senior diplomacy and national security reporter for Foreign Policy,
Congressional Infighting Could Boost White House in Iran Talks,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/21/congressional-infighting-could-boost-white-house-in-iran-talks/]

A hawkish Iran sanctions bill that President Barack Obama threatened to veto
in his State of the Union address now faces an unexpected foe in Congress:
competing legislation sponsored by Republicans. On Wednesday, Senator
Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) offered an alternative proposal to a controversial
piece of legislation sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Democratic Sen.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey that would impose new sanctions on Tehran if
world powers fail to strike an agreement that would restrain the countrys
nuclear program. Pauls proposal, which is still being hammered out with
California Democrat Barbara Boxer, would mandate votes in Congress to
reinstate sanctions against Iran if it violates any aspects of a final nuclear
deal. Boxer called the proposal a moderate alternative that would give
lawmakers the opportunity to re-impose waived or suspended sanctions
against Iran if the president in consultation with the intelligence community,
determines that Iran has violated any existing nuclear agreement. She and
her staff did not offer more details, saying the two lawmakers were still
putting the finishing touches on the legislation. Unlike the Kirk-Menendez
bill, the Obama administration remains open to the Paul-Boxer proposal
because it would not derail the sensitive negotiations playing out in Vienna .
Thats a problem for Menendez and Kirk, who want to unite Congress behind
their own Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act. I oppose the legislation Ive seen
so far, Boxer said Wednesday at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. I
am working on legislation with Senator Paul to send a clear, unequivocal
signal that Iran will be held accountable for its actions and any failure to fulfill
its commitments will be met by swift action by Congress. To build a vetoproof majority, the Kirk-Menendez bill needs the support of at least 13
Democrats. Given the impressive bipartisan support for the sanctions
legislation last year it garnered 60-cosponsors many believed a
Republican-controlled Congress could overcome the presidents veto.
However, a number of hawkish Democrats who previously supported such
legislation including Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
have begun to waffle on the legislation in recent days, The administration
has a point. I think we should listen to what they have to say, Cardin, a cosponsor of the Menendez-Kirk legislation, told reporters on Tuesday.
Hopefully we can reach some agreement on whens the best timing for its
consideration. A prospective bill by Paul and Boxer could peel off the
Democratic votes that Kirk and Menendez need especially as former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a prospective 2016 presidential candidate,
called the sanctions legislation a very serious strategic error on Wednesday.

The impacts inevitableno deal and it wont solve

anyways
Bloomberg 1-26 (Terry Atlas, 1-26-2015, "Iran Nuclear Deal Prospects
Fade as Israel Opposes Terms", Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-26/iran-nuclear-dealprospects-fade-as-israel-digs-in-against-terms, Accessed: 1-29-2015) JO
The odds of reaching a deal to prevent Iran from developing nuclear
weapons that could pass muster in Tehran, Jerusalem and the U.S.
Congress are growing longer. U.S. officials have never said the
chances of success were better than 50-50, and privately some
American negotiators are much more pessimistic than that as the
negotiations head toward a March 24 deadline to agree on a political
framework. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that he strongly
objects to the terms of the potential nuclear deal. Thats a message
hes likely to press when he comes to Washington in March, shortly
before Israeli elections, to address a joint meeting of Congress and
rally pro-Israel activists to lobby lawmakers too. The agreement
now being formulated between the major powers and Iran is
unacceptable to Israel, Netanyahu said in comments during a visit to a defense company in
Yehud, near Tel Aviv. This agreement is dangerous to Israel, to the region and to the world. Netanyahus
push to kill a deal will further strain his relations with President Barack Obama, whos made getting a

the pending
agreement would destroy the whole sanctions framework and allow
Iran to continue its illicit nuclear program, and his strategy is try to use the
nuclear agreement one of his foreign policy priorities. Netanyahu believes

Republican Congress as a counterweight to Obamas determination to seal a bad deal with Tehran, said
Gerald Steinberg, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. The

only other option

for him would be military action, which would create even more
friction with the U.S. The U.S., the five nations that are its
negotiating partners and Iran are wrangling over the terms of a deal
that would limit Irans nuclear capabilities to prevent the Islamic
Republic from developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear
program is solely for civilian purposes. Obama said in his State of the Union address
this month that the bipartisan move in Congress for further sanctions legislation threatens to derail the

Democratic
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California on Monday denounced
sanctions legislation, such as a bill offered by Republican Senator
Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democratic Senator Senator Bob Menendez
of New Jersey, as reckless and dangerous. Menendez abruptly shifted his
talks. He said hed veto such a measure to give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

position on Tuesday and said he now supports delaying a Senate floor vote until after the March 24
deadline in the talks. He was joined by Democratic colleagues including Chuck Schumer of New York, the
Senates No. 3 Democrat, in a letter to Obama. Viable Deal Republican Senator Richard Shelby of
Alabama, the chairman of the Banking Committee, has scheduled a meeting of the panel on Thursday to
act on the Kirk-Menendez bill. He said the Senate should move ahead because more pressure on Iran is
needed to produce a viable deal. The major pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, has told lawmakers that the imposition of further sanctions is needed to get a good deal from
Iran. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee, said
Tuesday that the last thing Congress should do is pass legislation now that lacks enough votes to
overcome an Obama veto. Corker said last week that hes drafting legislation that would a require a
congressional review of any agreement. An accord wouldnt be a treaty requiring Senate ratification,
though only Congress could lift U.S. sanctions on Iran permanently, as a deal would call for. Sham
Negotiations Blowing up the talks is a goal for some U.S. lawmakers backing the imposition of more
sanctions, such as Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a member of the intelligence and armed
services committees, who advocates a U.S. policy seeking regime change in Iran. The end of the sham
negotiations isnt an unintended consequence of congressional action, Cotton said two weeks ago at the
Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that reflects Republican and conservative views on many
issues. It is very much an intended consequence -- a feature, not a bug, so to speak. Iran has its hard-

liners too. While they have criticized Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the countrys top negotiator,
the only opinion that matters is that of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have

The
nuclear capabilities that Iran would be allowed to retain are the crux
of Israeli objections and are sure to be scrutinized by Irans other
regional foe, Saudi Arabia, which has raised the prospect of
developing its own nuclear weapons in response to Iranian actions.
questioned whether he will permit Iranian concessions sufficient for a deal. Israels Objections

Last week, the head of Israels Mossad intelligence service, Tamir Pardo, highlighted Israels objections to
the bad deal when he met with a group of visiting senators led by Republican John McCain of Arizona.

The Mossad chief pointed out explicitly that the bad agreement
taking shape with Iran is likely to lead to a regional arms race ,
according to a statement from the agency. Iran wont make necessary concessions without more pressure
such as increased sanctions, even if that amounts to throwing a grenade to create a temporary crisis
in the talks, according to the statement. Some former U.S. officials, using a metaphor for bargaining in a
bazaar rather than a military one, argue that America and its allies must walk out of the talks to wrench
the necessary concessions out of the Iranians. Evident Disputes While U.S. officials say that nothing is
agreed upon until everything is agreed upon, the issues in dispute were evident in Senate testimony last
week by Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Central to the debate, Israel wants measures to
dismantle parts of Irans nuclear infrastructure so it would be unable to develop nuclear weapons. Blinken
said the deal taking shape wouldnt go that far and, with intrusive inspections, would ensure that cheating
by Iran would set off a trip-wire warning. Any agreement must give us confidence that should Iran choose
to break its commitments, it would take at least one year to produce enough fissile material for a bomb,
he told the Senate Banking Committee. That reflects that the U.S. envisions allowing Iran to retain limited
capabilities to enrich uranium for nuclear power, which is also an essential step to producing nuclear
weapons. Israel has said Iran has no need for that technology except to maintain a potential weapons

Netanyahu said Monday that such terms leave

Iran the ability to produce the necessary material for a nuclear
bomb within a few months and afterwards to produce dozens of
nuclear bombs. The U.S. and its negotiating partners -- China,
France, Germany, Russia and the U.K. -- concluded months ago that
sticking to a zero-enrichment demand would kill any chance of
reaching an agreement because Iran would never accept it, Blinken
said. I think it became clear not only to us, but also to all of our partners, that Iran was not going to
capability. Netanyahus Objections

give up, as a practical matter, some very limited forms of enrichment, he said. The world powers
conceded that Iran would retain some enrichment capability when they approved the current interim
accord, which has frozen or rolled back some of Irans activities, Blinken said. In his Senate testimony,
Blinken said the world powers can live with that, and he rejected the idea that airstrikes, such as those
threatened by Israel, would thwart Irans nuclear activities in the long term.

Bottom of the Docket

Not top of the docket- wont get voted on until after
March 24
Bloomberg 1/27 [1/27/15, "Menendez Urges Delay in His Own Iran

Sanctions Legislation" http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-0127/menendez-urges-delay-in-his-own-iran-sanctions-legislation]

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he will
seek to delay action on legislation hes sponsoring that would impose more
sanctions on Iran if negotiations over its nuclear program fail . At a Senate
Banking Committee hearing Tuesday, Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey
called for postponing a Senate floor vote until a March 24 deadline in talks
between Iran and world powers. Menendez, a leading sanctions advocate,
was backed by colleagues including Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senates
No. 3 Democrat, in a letter to President Barack Obama. The move may stop,
or at least slow, momentum in the Republican-led Senate toward passage of
legislation that Obama has said hell veto . In his State of the Union address this month,
Obama said further sanctions legislation threatens to derail the talks to curb Irans nuclear
capabilities. Many

of my Democratic colleagues and I sent a letter to

the president telling him we will not support passage of the KirkMenendez bill on the Senate floor until after a March 24 deadline in
the negotiations, Menendez said, referring to legislation he has
worked on with Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois . The U.S., the five

nations that are its negotiating partners and Iran are wrangling over terms of a deal that would limit Irans
nuclear capabilities to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear
program is solely for civilian purposes. No Excuses After

March 24, we will only vote

for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach
agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of
a comprehensive agreement, the senators said in the letter to
Obama. Menendez told reporters in the U.S. Capitol Tuesday after the
hearing that he sought the delay to give the president the space that
he wanted and to not have any excuses for an agreement not being
achieved. The White House welcomed the move by Menendez to back off the sanctions bill,

according to an administration official who briefed reporters aboard Air Force One as Obama returned to
the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. That official said the president and members of his administration have
continued to press the argument that unilaterally imposing new sanctions risks derailing the nuclear talks
and splitting the international coalition behind the sanctions regime, which has been effective in forcing
Iran to bargain. Viable Deal Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the chairman of the
Banking Committee, has scheduled a meeting of the panel on Thursday to act on the Kirk-Menendez bill.
He said the Senate should move ahead because more pressure on Iran is needed to produce a viable
deal. Rejecting Obamas argument that adding more sanctions would sabotage chances for diplomacy
with Iran, Shelby said, Its been my experience that if a party is negotiating in good faith and with an
intent to reach an agreement, they will seek common ground and not an excuse to walk away. Deputy
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, testifying before the Senate committee, said he appreciates very
much Menendezs move for a delay. The extension of the interim agreement with Iran calls for reaching
a political framework by March 24 and then completing all the technical details by the end of June. Blinken
said its possible the administration may need more time beyond March 24 for the political accord if
negotiators are close to a deal at that date. Deadline Details Officials have been vague publicly about
what a framework would require, and Blinken said last week that it may or may not be in a written form
that would be made public. The idea is that it would set the terms of the accord in multiple chapters, which
would subsequently require complex technical elements to detail implementation and verification. Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, told reporters Tuesday at the Capitol that a
decision about the legislations timing would be made after the bill moves out of committee.

Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee emphasized the need

for bipartisan action on Iran. He said during the hearing that the

last thing Congress should do is pass legislation that wont have

two-thirds majority vote needed to overcome a veto . After the
hearing, Corker, who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said he doesnt want Iran to see a partisan split. He said his guess
is that the Kirk-Menendez bill will make it to the Senate floor after
the March deadline, as its Democratic supporters are urging. One
thing I want to do is make sure we stay unified as much as possible,
he told reporters in the U.S. Capitol. Nine other Senate Democrats joined Menendez in the Obama letter,
which pledged not to support the measure on the floor before the March deadline. Senators who signed the
letter included Schumer, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Gary Peters and
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chris Coons of
Delaware and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Israel and many of its supporters in the U.S. have pushed for
more sanctions to avert what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the bad deal taking shape
in negotiations with Iran. Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress on March 3 at the
invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

A nuclear agreement will be reached before the sanctions

are voted on
Morello, 12/7 [Carol. 12/7/14, Washington correspondent for the Washington Post, Kerry
Predicts Iran Nuclear Talks Will Be Settled Long Before June Deadline,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-predicts-iran-nuclear-talks-will-be-settledlong-before-june-deadline/2014/12/07/72d18dc6-7e58-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html]

Secretary of State John F. Kerry predicted Sunday that a deal to limit Irans
nuclear capacity could be reached in three or four months, or even sooner .
Appearing at the Saban Forum, which is affiliated with the Brookings
Institution, Kerry defended the decision two weeks ago to extend nuclear
negotiations with Iran for up to seven months. The extension came after the
parties failed to agree on a comprehensive pact in last-minute talks leading
up to a Nov. 24 deadline. But Kerry said it will become apparent, long before
the new June 30 deadline, if an agreement is feasible. Were not looking at
seven months, Kerry said. I think the target is three, four months, and
hopefully even sooner if that is possible.

Cybersecurity

Topshelf

1NC
Cybersecurity bill will pass, but Obamas political capital
is key.
Sorcher, 1/14 [Sara, 1/14/15, staff writer for the Christian Science

Monitor, Sony hack gives Obama political capital to push cybersecurity

agenda, Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0114/Sony-hack-givesObama-political-capital-to-push-cybersecurity-agenda-video]
In gridlocked Washington, the aftereffects of the cyberattack on Sony Pictures may ultimately
forces Republicans and Democrats to come together on an
information-sharing bill. Edward Snowden may have doomed the prospects for cybersecurity
legislation last Congress but North Korea may revive them in this one. After the leaks from the former
National Security Agency contractor, privacy advocates staunchly opposed cybersecurity bills that share
information with the government, amid fears they would increase the spy agencys power to access and
share even more private information from citizens. The information-sharing bills stalled. Yet President

Obamas new push this week has so far been warmly received on Capitol
Hill and on both sides of the aisle. Obamas proposals, one week before his State of the Union
address, come after the destructive hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment, for which the government has
publicly blamed and sanctioned North Korea. Its also on the heels of a maelstrom of other high-profile data
breaches last including on Home Depot and JP Morgan Chase & Co. and this weeks brief takeover of the

it
may be enough momentum to break the logjam and give members of
Congress political cover to come together this session to support a
controversial part of Obamas cybersecurity agenda : To give companies
US militarys Central Command social media accounts by apparent Islamic State supporters. All told,

immunity from lawsuits if they share certain information about cyber threats with the government with the

An information-sharing bill has to pass this

Congress, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, told
Passcode. It helps any time the president supports something . Moving a
cybersecurity information-sharing bill has never been easy , he acknowledged, but
Department of Homeland Security.

were committed to go extremely quickly.

<<Insert Link Here>>

Obamas legislation key to prevent widespread
cyberattacks.
Martin, 1/18 [Greg, 1/18/15, founder and CTO of ThreatStream, provider

of cyber threat intelligence for enterprise and government, Here's What The
US Has To Do To Prevent Massive Cyberattacks, Business Insider,
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-we-have-to-do-to-stop-cyberattacks2015-1]
Preventing these attacks isnt easy, and theres no such thing as a silver bullet. But if a company
or government agency knows ahead of time how it is likely to be hacked, that
gives it a crucial advantage when defending against a sophisticated hacker. And
thats basically all that cyber information sharing proposes to do : take
evidence or clues from one attack and use it to protect everyone else. For example: if
oil refinery A notices someone is trying to hack it, they can ascertain the IP address(es) linked to the
attacker, routing information, any type of malware being used, software bugs exploited by the hacker, etc.,
and pass that information along to the Department of Homeland Security, which will in turn pass it out to

other companies so that refineries B, C and D arent also hacked. This information is sort of like the
fingerprint of the attacker. At the risk of mixing metaphors,

this is the cyber equivalent of

vaccinating a company against a specific threat. The Presidents prioritization of cyber

information-sharing isnt a knee-jerk reaction to the massive Sony hack, which has since been attributed to
North Korea. This has been on the legislative agenda for some time, its just failed to get enough support
to pass. Obama first proposed this reform back in 2011, and Congress has since filed bills supporting
information-sharing every year since 2011. While civil liberty groups are largely opposed to cyber
information sharing, their concerns are misguided.

The type of information that will be swapped

between the private sector and the government will be limited to technical data , such as
IP addresses, routing information, date-time stamps, etc. not what a person has been browsing on the
Web. Remember, this type of data collection is limited to criminal online activity denial-of-service
attacks, network intrusions, spreading malware, phishing and the like. The President has emphasized that
such data collection would scrub out personally identifiable information if a person is not related to the
cyber threat. Cyber information sharing is so important for preventing the
types of attacks weve seen over the last few years, that aspects of it have already been incorporated into
many of the security products on the market today - including antivirus, anti-malware, intrusion detection
systems and more. There are also a few private cloud-based sharing platforms that companies are now
using. Additionally, the banking industry recently launched its own nationwide information sharing program

right now this is a

patchwork effort. The current threat intelligence we have isnt enough to
track the majority of threats out there. And most companies arent using any threat
intelligence at all. Without a federal law that authorizes cyber information sharing and
to help member banks stay ahead of hackers. The problem, however, is that

provides limited liability protections so that companies dont have to worry about a class-action lawsuit just
because they shared anonymized technical data culled from active cyber attacks,

this new

defense wont work en masse since it will be limited to a smaller pool of

threat data. Until it goes mainstream, companies and other institutions wont be
able to benefit from a key advancement in how we fight against hackers. By now, most people should
realize that cyber attacks arent a theoretical risk theyre happening every day, and
the scale of these attacks is growing worse each year. The wiper malware attack noted
at the beginning of this article isnt a made-up scenario this actually happened to multiple South Korean
banks in 2013. This attack was similar to one global energy giant Saudi Aramco experienced a year before,
when 30,000 of its computers were also rendered unusable by wiper malware. In 2012 and 2013, many
leading US banks were knocked offline intermittently over a period of several days by the same group(s)
using distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. In 2014, US retailers were infected with variations of the
same type of point-of-sale malware, known as BlackPOS. Last year, the energy industry was widely

Cybersecurity is likely to be one

facing US government agencies

affected by the same strand of malware, known as BlackEnergy.

of

the greatest security challenge s

and businesses

Using clues from one attack to prevent it from

spreading to other businesses is crucial to stopping the rampage.
over the next decade.

Cyber attacks collapse command and control the break

down in decision- making causes nuclear war.
Cimbala, 11(Stephen, Professor of Political Science at Penn State University, Nuclear Crisis
Management and "Cyberwar" Phishing for Trouble? Strategic Studies Quarterly, Spring, 117-131,
proquest)

cyberwar might adversely affect nuclear crisis

management. Readers are advised, however, that history is indeterminate. It might turn out that, in
This section discusses how

some fortuitous cases, the United States could use nuclear deterrence and cyberwar as joint multipliers
toward a successful outcome in crisis or war. For example, in facing down an opponent with a
comparatively small or no nuclear arsenal and inferior conventional strike capabilities, the United States or
another power could employ information warfare aggressively "up front" while forgoing explicit mention of
its available nuclear capability. Russia's five-day war against Georgia in August 2008 involved obvious
cyber attacks as well as land and air operations, but no explicit nuclear threats. On the other hand, had
Georgia already been taken into membership by NATO prior to August 2008 or had Russo-Georgian fighting
spread into NATO member-state territory, the visibility of Russia's nuclear arsenal as a latent and
potentially explicit threat would have been much greater. Notwithstanding the preceding disclaimers,
information warfare has the potential to attack or disrupt successful crisis management on each of four

dimensions. First,

it can muddy

the

signals being sent from one side to the other in a crisis. This

can be done deliberately or inadvertently. Suppose one side plants a virus or worm in the other's
communications networks.19 The virus or worm becomes activated during the crisis and destroys or alters
information. The missing or altered information may make it more difficult for the cyber victim to arrange a
military attack. But destroyed or altered information may mislead either side into
thinking that its signal has been correctly interpreted when it has not. Thus, side A may intend to signal
"resolve" instead of "yield" to its opponent on a particular issue. Side B, misperceiving a "yield" message,
may decide to continue its aggression, meeting unexpected resistance and causing a much more

Infowar can also destroy or disrupt communication

channels necessary for successful crisis management. One way it can do this
dangerous situation to develop.

is to disrupt communication links between policymakers and military commanders during a period of high
threat and severe time pressure. Two kinds of unanticipated problems, from the standpoint of civil-military
relations, are possible under these conditions. First, political leaders may have predelegated limited
authority for nuclear release or launch under restrictive conditions; only when these few conditions obtain,
according to the protocols of predelegation, would military commanders be authorized to employ nuclear

disrupted
communications could prevent top leaders from knowing that military
commanders perceived a situation to be far more desperate, and thus
permissive of nuclear initiative, than it really was. During the Cold War, for example,
weapons distributed within their command. Clogged, destroyed, or

disrupted communications between the US National Command Authority and ballistic missile submarines,
once the latter came under attack, could have resulted in a joint decision by submarine officers to launch
in the absence of contrary instructions. Second, information warfare during a crisis will almost certainly
increase the time pressure under which political leaders operate. It may do this literally, or it may affect
the perceived timelines within which the policymaking process can make its decisions. Once either side
sees parts of its command, control, and communications (C3) system being subverted by phony
information or extraneous cyber noise, its sense of panic at the possible loss of military options will be
enormous. In the case of US Cold War nuclear war plans, for example, disruption of even portions of the
strategic C3 system could have prevented competent execution of parts of the SIOP (the strategic nuclear
war plan). The SIOP depended upon finely orchestrated time-on-target estimates and precise damage
expectancies against various classes of targets. Partially misinformed or disinformed networks and
communications centers would have led to redundant attacks against the same target sets and, quite
possibly, unplanned attacks on friendly military or civilian installations. A third potentially disruptive effect

infowar on nuclear crisis management is that it may reduce the search for available
alternatives to the few and desperate. Policymakers searching for escapes from crisis denouements
of

need flexible options and creative problem solving. Victims of information warfare may have a diminished
ability to solve problems routinely, let alone creatively, once information networks are filled with flotsam
and jetsam. Questions to operators will be poorly posed, and responses (if available at all) will be driven
toward the least common denominator of previously programmed standard operating procedures.

Retaliatory systems that depend on launch-on-warning instead of survival after riding out an
attack are especially vulnerable to reduced time cycles and restricted alternatives: A welldesigned warning system cannot save commanders from misjudging the
situation under the constraints of time and information imposed by a posture of launch on warning.

Such a posture truncates the decision process too early for iterative estimates to converge on reality. Rapid
reaction is inherently unstable because it cuts short the learning time needed to match perception with
reality.20 The propensity to search for the first available alternative that meets minimum satisfactory
conditions of goal attainment is strong enough under normal conditions in nonmilitary bureaucratic

under the stress of nuclear

decision making, the first available alternative may quite literally be the

organizations.21 In civilmilitary command and control systems

crisis

last; or so policymakers and their military advisors may persuade themselves. Accordingly, the bias

toward prompt and adequate solutions is strong. During the Cuban missile crisis, a number of members of
the presidential advisory group continued to propound an air strike and invasion of Cuba during the entire
13 days of crisis deliberation. Had less time been available for debate and had President Kennedy not
deliberately structured the discussion in a way that forced alternatives to the surface, the air strike and
invasion might well have been the chosen alternative.22 Fourth and finally on the issue of crisis

infowar can cause flawed images of each side's intentions and

capabilities to be conveyed to the other, with potentially disastrous results. Another
management,

example from the Cuban crisis demonstrates the possible side effects of simple misunderstanding and
noncommunication on US crisis management. At the most tense period of the crisis, a U-2 reconnaissance
aircraft got off course and strayed into Soviet airspace. US and Soviet fighters scrambled, and a possible
Arctic confrontation of air forces loomed. Khrushchev later told Kennedy that Soviet air defenses might

have interpreted the U-2 flight as a prestrike reconnaissance mission or as a bomber, calling for a
compensatory response by Moscow.23 Fortunately Moscow chose to give the United States the benefit of
the doubt in this instance and to permit US fighters to escort the wayward U-2 back to Alaska. Why this
scheduled U-2 mission was not scrubbed once the crisis began has never been fully revealed; the answer
may be as simple as bureaucratic inertia compounded by noncommunication down the chain of command
by policymakers who failed to appreciate the risk of "normal" reconnaissance under these extraordinary
conditions.

2NC OV
Obama is pushing for new cybersecurity legislation that
mandates that companies share information about
breaches in security with the federal government in order
to ensure that agencies like the FBI have a holistic
understanding of the various threats and are able to
respond in an informed manner. However, the plan
alienates key members of congress and prevents the bills
passage. This makes cyberattacks inevitable.
This outweighs and turns the case:
1- Our Cimbala evidence indicates that hackers will go
for places like command centers in order to destroy
communication. This is the most likely scenario for
miscalc because governmental agencies are
incapable of effective communication
2- Cimbala also makes a perceptions claim. In the world
of collapsed governmental communication, we create
flawed images of other countries intentions and
capabilities, ensuring a hostile position that
exacerbates the risk of war.
Ill do the impact calc here:
First is probability- cyberattacks are daily
occurrence, and it is only a question of scale.
However, hackers are gaining confidence in the USs
inability to respond to threats, as is empirically
proven by the Sony hack by North Korea. This should
frame your ballot because it is not a question of if
but when
Second is timeframe- this really shouldnt be a big
factor in your decision calculus because while we
dont know exactly when we will face the big hack, it
could happen at any time. The best method of risk
mitigation means that you should evaluate this
threat as happening at any moment, which means we
have a timeframe of functionally zero.
Third is magnitude- Cimbala is really good on this
question. A major cyberattack will result in
extinction in a number of ways; inability to retaliate,

unduly hostile perceptions of other countries, and

increased inclination for nuclear measures.

2NC UQ Wall
The Sony hack has given Obama PC to pass Cyber Security
legislation
Sorcher 1/14 [Sara, 1/14/15, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, "Sony Hack Gives Obama
Political Capital to Push Cybersecurity Agenda,"
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0114/Sony-hack-gives-Obama-political-capital-to-pushcybersecurity-agenda-video)

Edward Snowden may have doomed the prospects for cybersecurity

legislation last Congress but North Korea may revive them in this one .
After the leaks from the former National Security Agency contractor, privacy
advocates staunchly opposed cybersecurity bills that share information with
the government, amid fears they would increase the spy agencys power to
access and share even more private information from citizens. The
information-sharing bills stalled. Yet President Obamas new push this week
has so far been warmly received on Capitol Hill and on both sides of the
aisle. Obamas proposals, one week before his State of the Union
address, come after the destructive hack of Sony Pictures
Entertainment, for which the government has publicly blamed and
sanctioned North Korea. Its also on the heels of a maelstrom of
other high-profile data breaches last including on Home Depot and
JP Morgan Chase & Co. and this weeks brief takeover of the US
militarys Central Command social media accounts by apparent
Islamic State supporters. All told, it may be enough momentum to
break the logjam and give members of Congress political cover to
come together this session to support a controversial part of
Obamas cybersecurity agenda: To give companies immunity from
lawsuits if they share certain information about cyber threats with
the government with the Department of Homeland Security. An
information-sharing bill has to pass this Congress, Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, told
Passcode. It helps any time the president supports something. Moving a cybersecurity informationsharing bill has never been easy, he acknowledged, but were committed to go extremely quickly. Get
Monitor cybersecurity news and analysis delivered straight to your inbox. The Sony hack was a wake-up
call on Capitol Hill, several lawmakers said. The attackers not only stole private information, they
destroyed company data and computer hardware, and they also coerced Sony into altering its plans to
release "The Interview," the comedy about the assassination of the North Korean leaders. All of this may
go a long way to persuade lawmakers that mandating information sharing about cybersecurity threats will
ultimately help defend private companies. Im glad [Obama] is pushing to address cyber legislation,
said Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. Weve stalled in the past, and if you look at what
happened with the Sony attack, I think we cant afford to stall anymore. I think his timing is right on
here . I havent talked to anyone in Congress who has said, This shouldnt be a priority for us. Sen.
Angus King, an independent on the Intelligence Committee, agreed. I think everybody realizes the
urgency. Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, who already reintroduced his version of
information-sharing legislation this session, said in a statement that, President Obama and I agree we can
no longer afford to play political games while rogue hackers, terrorists, organized criminals and even state

However, just because everybodys on board with

the idea of it as Republican Sen. John McCain puts it doesnt mean it will
be easy to make progress on this controversial and complicated issue. I have
been to more meetings on cyber than any other issue in my time in the
Senate, and gotten the least amount of result, said Senator McCain, who
actors sharpen their cyber skills.

chairs the Armed Services Committee. There are already divisions

emerging this time around. McCain opposes the White Houses
proposal to route cyberthreat information through the Department
of Homeland Security. He said the National Security Agency should take
that role. Im glad to see a proposal of theirs, for a change, and well be glad
to work on it just not rubber stamp it, said McCain. On the other side of
the spectrum, some privacy advocates are unhappy that Obamas
proposal which essentially rehashes bills maligned by privacy
groups since 2011 would enable DHS to share the data it receives
on threats with other relevant federal agencies. Were going to be
pushing to kill the bill, probably, said Mark Jaycox, a legislative
analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in part because it still does not
appear to offer a mandatory requirement companies remove personal information before sharing it, and
because the data will ultimately end up in the hands of the NSA. While its always good for the White
House to talk about consumer privacy and user privacy, the most important privacy item is NSA reform,
Mr. Jaycox said. That said, members appear to have an eye on compromise. One of the most divisive
issues has been which agency will collect the threat information and Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson says he is inclined to support using DHS as the main
repository. Because of the sensitivity of the Edward Snowden public perception, and the concern about
civil liberties, the civilian agency of government might be the best place to have as a center point,
Senator Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, told Passcode. Burr, the Intel chair, also hinted at the possibility
of compromise. I think well do this in a way that can assure passage because the nation needs it.
Johnson says the urgency for cybersecurity legislation after the Sony hack might sway some of his
Republican colleagues to move away from focusing on the NSA as well as people on the left, too. Its
not just the federal government that can threaten our civil liberties," said Johnson. If attacks such as the
Sony hack continue, he said, "take a look at how much at risk our freedoms will be at that point. Sony
may help overcome the post-Snowden fear factor about sharing information with the government, said
Rep. Jim Langevin, co-chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, which has grown by 11 members
just this session. Cybersecurity legislation stalled because Snowden created this belief that there was
this massive government overreach on the capabilities of the information that was being collected at NSA,
said Representative Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat, in an interview last week. It didnt have really
anything to do with what were talking about in terms of sharing classified threat signatures. But now, he
said, People

are becoming attuned to the fact that a country or a

hacker could really go after one of the nations major corporations
as they did against Sony, and cost them potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage. And that, said Langevin, "was an eye
opener.

Cyber security bills are unpopular but right now there is

enough pressure to force Congress hand
Bennett, 1/29 [Cory, 1/29/15, cybersecurity correspondent for the Hill,
Lawmakers Offer Bipartisan Data Security Bill,
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/231112-house-gets-data-breach-bill]
Two House members on Wednesday reintroduced a bill requiring companies
to meet certain data security standards when handling customers personal
information. Its the latest effort in a years-long campaign to get a federal
data breach bill passed. The measure, from Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and
Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), would deputize the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to set
nationwide data security standards for companies handling sensitive data,
such as full names, Social Security numbers, ID information and credit card
information. If this information was exposed by hackers, companies would

have to notify the customers and the FTC. They also could face civil penalties
of up to $5 million if they hadnt adhered to the commissions security
standards. Versions of the bill known as Data Accountability and Trust Act
(DATA) have been introduced in the House several times, and a measure
was approved in 2009. But no versions of the bill have ever become law, and
in 2014, efforts to approve a data security bill went nowhere. Proponents are
more hopeful this year after a string of high-profile cyberattacks on major
companies like Target, Home Depot, JPMorgan and most recently Sony
Pictures have raised awareness of the issue, putting pressure on Congress to
act. On Tuesday, The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade held 2015s first hearing on data
breaches. There was general bipartisan consensus that Congress can move
on a federal data breach bill this year.

Obama is pushing for new cyber security legislation

Kelly, 1/28 [Erin, 1/28/15, reporter for USA Today, Senate Panel Begins

Crafting Cybersecurity Legislation,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/28/cybersecurity-informationsharing-senate-homeland-security/22472039/]
WASHINGTON A key Senate panel took the first step Wednesday toward
crafting legislation to give businesses greater incentives to share information
about cyber threats with the federal government . The Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee asked corporate leaders and
civil liberties experts how best to write a bill that would boost informationsharing while still protecting consumers' personal data. "One of our missions
for this Congress is to address the cybersecurity threat," said the committee's
new chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. Lawmakers appear to be moving
quickly to take up a bill in the new Congress as President Obama and a
coalition of tech and business groups push for action in the wake of the highprofile hack of Sony Pictures in November. In addition to Wednesday's Senate
hearing, House committees held two hearings on cybersecurity issues
Tuesday. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association,
Telecommunications Industry Association and about 20 other business groups
sent a letter to Senate leaders this week calling on them to pass an
information-sharing bill as quickly as possible. "Cyberattacks aimed at U.S.
businesses and government entities are being launched from various sources,
including sophisticated hackers, organized crime, and state-sponsored
groups," the letter reads. "These attacks are advancing in scope and
complexity ... congressional action cannot come soon enough."

PC Key
Obamas PC is key, the bill is controversial. Also, its top
of the docket
Bennett, 1/8 [Cory, 1/8/15, Cybersecurity correspondent for the Hill,

House Dem Revives Major Cyber Bill,

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem-to-reintroducemajor-cyber-bill]
A senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee on Friday will
reintroduce a controversial bill that would help the public and private sectors
share information about cybersecurity threats. The reason Im putting bill in
now is I want to keep the momentum going on whats happening out there in
the world, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), told The Hill in an interview,
referring to the recent Sony hack, which the FBI blamed on North Korea. The
measure known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
(CISPA) has been a top legislative priority for industry groups and
intelligence officials, who argue the country cannot properly defend critical
infrastructure without it. The House passed Ruppersbergers bill last year, but
it stalled in the Senate amid concerns from privacy advocates that it would
enable more collection of Americans private information. Ruppersberger lost
his 2014 co-sponsor of the bill, former House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who retired from Congress. Im putting the
bill in by myself, Ruppersberger said, acknowledging it would require work to
find new bipartisan support. But by reintroducing the bill, hopefully that will
create momentum, he added.

High Risk
Cyber attack risk is high best data.
Carney, 14 [Jordan, 1/6/14, defense reporter at the National Journal,
Defense Leaders Say Cyber is Top Terror Threat,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/defense-leaders-say-cyber-is-topterror-threat-20140106]
Defense officials see cyberattacks as the greatest threat to U.S.
national security, according to a survey released Monday. Forty-five percent of respondents
to the Defense News Leadership Poll named a cyberattack as the single
greatest threatnearly 20 percentage points above terrorism, which ranked second. The Defense News
Leadership Poll, underwritten by United Technologies, surveyed 352 Defense News subscribers, based on job seniority,
between Nov. 14 and Nov. 28, 2013. The poll targeted senior employees within the White House, Pentagon, Congress, and
the defense industry. "The

magnitude of the cyber problem, combined with declining budgets,

will challenge the nation for years to come," said Vago Muradian, the editor of Defense News. It's not
the first time cyber has ranked at or near the top of a list of security concerns. Seventy percent of Americans called a

Defense
Department officials, for their part, have warned about the increasing threat. FBI Director James Comey,
cyberattack from another country a major threat in a Pew Research Center survey released last month.

Rand Beers, the then-acting secretary for the Homeland Security Department, and Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the

voiced their concerns before Congress last year. And House Intelligence
Rogers, R-Mich., called it the "largest national security
threat to the face the U.S. that we are not even close to being prepared to handle as a country."
National Security Agency, each
Committee Chairman Mike

Laundry List Impact

Cyber attacks cause a laundry list of impacts
Paikowsky and Baram, 1/7 [Deganit, 1/7/15, PhD in the Department
of Political Science at Tel Aviv University; Gil, PhD candidate at the
Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, Space Wars: Why our
space systems need an upgrade, Foreign Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142690/deganit-paikowsky-and-gilbaram/space-wars]
In September 2014, hackers from China broke into the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) network in an attempt to disrupt data related to disaster planning,
aviation, and much more coming from U.S. satellites. This breach was the latest in a series of

cyberattacks on space systems, exposing the Achilles heel of such technology: the
vulnerability of its computers and the information it creates and transmits. Cyberattacks, which are
on the rise in every industry, pose particularly significant threats to space systems
as they are used so ubiquitously in corporate and military operations, making them
increasingly attractive targets for hackers. Although only about a dozen countries have the capability to
launch a satellite into space,

billions of people around the world rely on space

systems for nearly every aspect of modern life. Satellites are used to support phones, the
Internet, and banking systems. They are also used to monitor land, air, and maritime traffic;
facilitate global communications; transmit mass media in real time; monitor the earth for
climate change or severe weather threats and natural disasters; gather
intelligence; and send early warnings of incoming ballistic missiles. It is no wonder,
then, that the global economy depends on communication satellites ,
navigation systems, and earth-observation satellites. The backbone of all these services consists of 1,200

satellites currently orbiting the earth, which have the potential to cause
tangible damage by attacking national or global space systems across countries and
continents. Even a small glitch can wreak havoc . For example, in April 2014, the
operational
significant

Glonass System, the Russian equivalent of the American-designed GPS, malfunctioned due to two small
mathematical mistakes in the software. Significantly, fixing the system took more than 13 hours, and the
half-day breakdown led to severe disruption of Glonass receivers, which affected iPhone5 users. While the
disruption was not caused by ambitious hackers, it is easy to see why space systems are the brass ring of

a relatively simple hack can

inflict considerable damage. EASY PREY Although a space system is composed of three
cybercrimes: They are low effort and high return. Therefore,

connected segmentssatellites and spacecraft that orbit the earth, ground stations, and the
communication systems that link the twocybercriminals

only need to find the

vulnerabilities in one of these segments. For example, for a few hundred dollars, a hacker

can buy a small jamming device on the Internet to interfere with satellite signals. We have to make it
(satellite navigation systems) more robust, warned Colonel Bradford Parkinson, who led the creation of
the GPS. Our cellphone towers are timed with GPS. If they lose that time, they lose sync and pretty soon
they dont operate. Our power grid is synchronized with GPS [and] so is our banking system. Space
systems have become the target of hacking. In July of last year, the United States identified a 28-year-old
British citizen who hacked a number of government networks, including NASA. He attempted to grab highly
sensitive data and claimed he would do some hilarious stuff with it. Four months later, in November
2013, viruses infected the computers used by the International Space Station. Japans space agency also
discovered a computer virus inside a few of its computers in January 2012 and Germanys space center
recently suffered an espionage attack, with several of its computers getting hit with spyware. Since 2009,
the BBC has complained of disruptions to its Persian-language radio and television programs and has
accused Tehran of interfering with international satellite broadcasts beamed into Iran. Only after the EU
made a diplomatic complaint to pressure Iran to cease and desist did the attacks stop. When North Korea
jammed South Koreas GPS signals in May 2012, it affected the navigation of over 250 flights. The list goes
on. One of the reasons space systems, especially commercial ones, are such easy prey is that they often
operate with outdated software. Developing a space system is generally a long process that, depending on
the complexity of the system, takes several years to complete. And once the system is operational, it is
expected to last for at least several yearssometimes even more than a decade. This process makes it

difficult to update the systems security software. Moreover, in many cases, the information systems that
are being used to manage space systems are mostly based on commercial off-the-shelf products, with
known vulnerabilities and low levels of protection, especially compared to supposedly better-protected
military systems. In 2014, a number of think-tanks, from the Council on Foreign Relations to London-based
Chatham House, as well as the information-security firm IOActive, sounded the alarm on how vulnerable

space systems are to cyberattacks. These reports warned of the ease with which

backdoors in softwarean undetected remote access to a computercan be exploited, and of the

prevalence of unsecured software, non-protected protocols, and unencrypted channels. One of the studies
recommendations was to immediately remove software updates from the public websites of various
companies that provide satellite services and equipment, in order to prevent hackers from reverseengineering the source code. However, despite these warnings, the space industry is barely aware of these
risks and its responses are slow. Herein lies a challenge: to produce and put into practice standards and
regulations regarding multinational and commercial activities in space technology and exploration.

**Aff Answers**

NSA Turn
The bill either wont pass or faileffective cybersecurity
reform requires curbing the NSAs surveillance capacity
Lawmakers' enthusiasm for passing a cybersecurity bill will face a major
hurdle this summer National Security Agency (NSA) reform. By June 1,
Congress must reauthorize the sections of the Patriot Act that are the basis
for the NSAs most controversial surveillance programs. Surveillance concerns
have taken a back seat to cybersecurity following the dramatic hack on Sony
and a subsequent White House cyber push. But many believe NSA reforms
are crucial before the centerpiece of the White Houses cybersecurity
proposal cyber information sharing between the public and private sector
can pass Congress. I think whenever you talk about cyber information
sharing, youre going to have to address the NSA issue, or, more properly, the
privacy issue, said Alex Manning, who was staff director of the House
Homeland Security subcommittee on cybersecurity last Congress. The White
House proposal would put the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the
center of a program allowing the private sector to share information about
cyber threats with government agencies, in exchange for legal liability
protection. Industry groups and intelligence agencies argue information
exchange is essential to bolstering the nations cyber defenses. The
administrations DHS-centered plan seeks to respond to privacy concerns
about the NSA that derailed past cyber info sharing proposals. During the
2014 lame-duck session, lawmakers failure to curb the NSAs surveillance
programs was seen as the death knell for a cyber info-sharing bill.

Effective NSA surveillance key to prevent terrorist attacks

Yoo, 13 [John Yoo, 8/16/13, former US Attorney General Office of Legal
Counsel Deputy assistant, National Review, Ending NSA Surveillance Is Not
the Answer, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356027/ending-nsasurveillance-not-answer-john-yoo]
We should be careful not to put the NSA in an impossible position. Of
course, we should be vigilant against the administrative state in all of its
tangled tendrils, especially its collection of taxes (the IRS scandal) and
enforcement of the laws (Obamas refusal to enforce Obamacare and
immigration law). The problem here, however, is that we are placing
these kinds of domestic law-enforcement standards on a foreign
intelligence function. With domestic law enforcement, we want the Justice
Department to monitor one identified target (identified because other
evidence gives probable cause that he or she has already committed a crime)
and to carefully minimize any surveillance so as not to intrude on privacy
interests.
Once we impose those standards on the military and intelligence
agencies, however, we are either guaranteeing failure or we must
accept a certain level of error. If the military and intelligence
agencies had to follow law-enforcement standards, their mission
would fail because they would not give us any improvement over
what the FBI could achieve anyway. If the intelligence community is

to detect future terrorist attacks through analyzing electronic

communications, we are asking them to search through a vast sea of
e-mails and phone-call patterns to find those few which, on the
surface, look innocent but are actually covert terrorist messages . If
we give them broader authority, we would have to accept a level of error that
is inherent in any human activity. No intelligence agency could perform
its mission of protecting the nations security without making a few
of these kinds of mistakes. The question is whether there are too many,
not whether there will be any at all.
Domestic law enforcement makes these errors too. Police seek warrants for
the wrong guy, execute a search in the wrong house, arrest the wrong
suspect, and even shoot unarmed suspects. We accept these mistakes
because we understand that no law-enforcement system can successfully
protect our communities from crime with perfection. The question is the error
rate, how much it would cost to reduce it, the impact on the effectiveness of
the program, and the remedies we have for mistakes. Consider those
questions in the context of the NSA surveillance program. The more
important question is not the top of the fraction but the bottom
not just how many mistakes occurred, but how many records were
searched overall. If there were 2,000 or so mistakes, as the
Washington Post suggests, but involving billions of communications,
the error rate is well less than 1 percent. Without looking at the latest
figures, I suspect that is a far lower error rate than those turned in by
domestic police on searches and arrests.
To end the NSAs efforts to intercept terrorist communications would
be to willfully blind ourselves to the most valuable intelligence
sources on al-Qaeda (now that the president wont allow the capture and
interrogation of al-Qaeda leaders). The more useful question is whether there
is a cost-effective way to reduce the error rate without detracting from the
effectiveness of the program, which, by General Keith Alexanders
accounting, has been high. Increasing judicial oversight might reduce errors
though I am dubious but in a way that would seriously slow down the
speed of the program, which is all-important if the mission is to stop
terrorists. And perhaps Congress should think about ways to remedy any
privacy violations in the future. But to end the program because it does
not have an error rate of zero is to impose a demand on the NSA that
no other government program, foreign or domestic, military or
civilian, could survive.

Terrorist retaliation causes nuclear war draws in Russia

and China
Ayson, 10 [Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the
Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of
Wellington, July, After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, Available Online
to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld]
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in
response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily

represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are
reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as
belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn
here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear
exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these
weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twentyfirst century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside
considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold
War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear
weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear
weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors
themselves. But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack
and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare not necessarily
separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially
an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events
leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or
more of the states that possess them. In this context, todays and
tomorrows terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early
Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were
seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and
early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1
problem. t may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an
especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to
such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a
terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just
how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least
because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state
sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too
responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that
could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however
remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States
react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of
nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason
Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of
that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science
fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris
resulting from a nuclear explosion would be spread over a wide area in tiny
fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable,
and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency
of the explosion, the materials used and, most important some indication
of where the nuclear material came from.41 Alternatively, if the act of
nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials
refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible
at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling
out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably
Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very
short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues,
and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be

definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension
in Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when
threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials
and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the
chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States
was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or
China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war,
as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The
reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur
in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited
conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures
that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible
perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washingtons early response to a
terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an
unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China.
For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate
aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be
expected to place the countrys armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal,
on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful
planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow
and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use
force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the
temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be
admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating
response.

Bill Fails
The bill failsIts merely reactive and doesnt actually do
anything to stop the cyberattacks against businesses in
the first place
Risen, 2/3 [Tom, 2/3/15, technology and business reporter for US News, Obama's Budget Can't Fix
Corporate Cybersecurity, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/03/obamas-budget-cant-fixcorporate-cybersecurity]

President Barack Obamas fiscal 2016 budget proposal calls for $14 billion in
spending on federal efforts to bolster cybersecurity and encourages
legislation to ease data sharing between the government and the private
sector in order to quickly detect and respond to online attacks. But that won't
be enough to address the key weakness of U.S. cybersecurity companies
are not doing enough to protect their own networks. Businesses still need to
take steps to prevent hacks in the first place, says Tony Cole, vice president
and global government chief technology officer with security firm FireEye. "A
federal data-breach notification standard would raise awareness about the
issue at companies by making it a bigger part of company policy, and a bill
easing threat data sharing could be effective if the information was shared
fast enough in real-time to prevent hacks," Cole says. "The federal
government spending could be well spent if it incentivized companies to take
advantage of better cybersecurity services offered by the Department of
Homeland Security, which provides network security monitoring through
Internet services providers like Verizon."

The bill fails to produce real change for businesses and

violates privacy rights
LeClaire, 1/21 [Jennifer, 1/21/15, national security correspondent, What Obama Missed About
Cybersecurity, http://www.toptechnews.com/article/index.php?story_id=010000CF3N48]

President Barack Obama took a moment to address cybersecurity in his State

of the Union address on Tuesday night. But some security analysts didnt
exactly like what they heard. Obama acknowledged the headline-making
hacks against corporations like Sony and individuals, as well. Twice he
mentioned protecting children from cyberthreats. "No foreign nation, no
hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or
invade the privacy of American families, especially our kids," he said. "I urge
this Congress to finally pass the legislation we need to better meet the
evolving threat of cyberattacks, combat identity theft, and protect Relevant
Products/Services our children's information. A Missed Opportunity? We
caught up with Ken Westin, a security analyst at advanced threat detection
firm Tripwire, to get his thoughts on Obama's approach to cybersecurity. He
told us Obama missed an opportunity to address concerns of overreach by
our own government and corporations when it comes to protecting citizens'
rights to privacy. "He specifically stated in his address that 'no foreign nation,
no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets,
or invade the privacy of American families.' He failed to mention how CISPA
(the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) will protect citizens' data
from abuse by our own government and corporations, Westin said. "Obama's
urging of Congress to pass CISPA may be premature, as they are asking

Americans and private industry to share more data without establishing

guidelines as to what the government can collect in the first place, Westin
added. Vague Definitions Dwayne Melancon, chief technology officer at
Tripwire, told us he has a productive idea: If the U.S. government were to do
one thing in 2015 that would make a significant difference in our
cybersecurity preparedness it would be to create a standard of due care that
would allow companies to objectively evaluate their current cybersecurity
investments and make strategic decisions about how to improve them. "The
problem is that the expectations of what is 'enough' cybersecurity protection
are very vaguely defined," he said. "In other words, there is no way for any
organization to determine if their investments in cybersecurity will be
deemed 'sufficient' to protect sensitive business and customer data." In his
experience, many organizational leaders throw their hands up in frustration
because they dont know where to start, and they dont have cybersecurity
expertise of their own. Organizations have an overwhelming array of choices
available to improve their cybersecurity programs, but they need the criteria
to enable them to make these investment decisions, he said. Proceed With
Caution "None of the expectations about cybersecurity protection are clearly
articulated, and few come from an authoritative source," Melancon said. "This
means that it's difficult for companies to legally defend themselves in the
event of a significant breach, and it also makes it difficult for companies that
haven't been breached to accurately assess business risks." Tim Erlin,
director of IT security and risk strategy at Tripwire, offered us these thoughts:
Rhetoric is just that, and the cybersecurity industry as a whole should be
cautious about Obama's proposals. Until they make their way through the
muck and mire of Congress, they remain merely ideas aspiring to become
reality.

Immigration Thumper
DA fails to solve- Increasing green cards is key to
combating cyber war
McLarty, 9 [Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White
House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report
of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, http://www.cfr.org/
publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html]
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B
visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across
industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now

it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in
the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security,
certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant
overseas, but

set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland

Was there any discussion

or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what
can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts
here in the United States, many of which are coming to the U.S.
institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back?
This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY:
Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less
talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students
studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to
develop these kind of technology and scientific advances, we're going to be
put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of
the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they
graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen, I think, our system, our
security needs.
Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands.

NASA

Topshelf

1NC
Obama is pushing for a big budget increase for NASA to
send astronauts to Mars, but Congress is pushing back
Amos, 2/3 [Jonathan, 2/3/15, Science Correspondent for BBC, Obama

Seeks to Raise Nasa Funding, http://www.bbc.com/news/scienceenvironment-31113216]

US President Barack Obama has requested $18.5bn (12.3bn) to run the
country's civil space agency, Nasa, in the Fiscal Year 2016. That would
represent a $519m increase on that enacted for FY2015. The president calls
once again for a big jump in funding for the commercial programme that aims
to get America launching its own astronauts again. But the request would
also end financial support for the venerable Mars rover Opportunity. As ever,
the proposals are not fixed until agreed with Congress , and the politicians on
Capitol Hill always insist on some changes, increasing some budget lines
whilst reducing others. This has certainly been the case in recent years with
the commercial crew programme, for which Congress has repeatedly denied
the requested funding. Nasa has contracted the Boeing and SpaceX
companies to develop capsule systems to ferry astronauts to and from the
space station, with 2017 being their likely entry into service. To keep this
schedule on track, the White House says Nasa will need $1.24bn in FY2016, a
more than 50% increase on the $805m it received in 2015. The longer the
programme is delayed by a funds shortage, the longer America will have to
pay the more expensive seat prices being charged by Russia currently to taxi
all nations astronauts in its Soyuz rockets and capsules. Earth record The
friction with Congress on this matter usually involves the amount of money
allocated for Nasas own deep-space rocket and capsule, known as the Space
Launch System and Orion, respectively. These components are what the
agency would use to send astronauts to destinations such as asteroids and
Mars. An unmanned test launch of the pair is now seen to occur no earlier
than late 2018. The FY2016 request is for $2.4bn, about $345m down on
what it is currently being spent. The leading supporters in Congress of these
two initiatives are already making their dissatisfaction known. Among other
highlights, the new budget request calls for an immediate initiation of a
new Landsat spacecraft.

<<Insert Link Here>>

Lack of NASA funding causes havoc in critical space
missions and our efforts at space colonization.
Harvey 12 (Ralph P, associate professor of Earth, Environmental and

Planetary Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 04.14.12, Space

exploration budget cuts would doom future missions: Ralph P. Harvey,
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/space_exploration_budg
et_cuts.html, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
In general, our government gets this. We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but
steady, modest support -- in good economic times and bad -- has brought
enormous positive returns. Continuing support for planetary sciences has

maintained our expertise and technological leadership. It has also allowed us to send
rovers to Mars to discover incredible evidence of that planet's past habitability; to capture cometary dust and bring it back to Earth; to witness
water geysers erupting on Saturn's moon Enceladus; and do dozens of other absolutely incredible things, all challenging and inspiring, that no

these incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological

are supported by a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- about four hundredths of one
percent. Unfortunately, this may all change if we don't take action. The administration's proposed budget for the 2013
fiscal year -- now in front of Congress -- includes a devastating 20 percent cut to planetary
funding. A cut of that scale will eliminate several Mars missions , break
other nation has done. Almost as amazing is that
expertise,

international agreements

that

jointly

support

other

missions

, eliminate

any

large-scale

"flagship" missions for the foreseeable future and force us to abandon

any plans to explore the potential habitability of the "water moons"
Europa and Enceladus, circling Jupiter and Saturn . Why is it so important to fix this? Can't planetary exploration handle
a little of the economic hardship the rest of us are dealing with? Answering this requires appreciation of two facts. First is that the proposed
cut is hugely disproportionate. While other agencies are being asked to stay the course or slow their growth, planetary exploration is having its

for planetary missions (like many

timing is everything. Opportunities to economically launch
spacecraft to Mars, a relatively close planet, come by every two years. Opportunities to
launch toward outer planets, where spacecraft may need a little gravitational assist from other planets to get
there, come along on decadal or even century time scales. Similarly, you can't switch a Mars rover back
on once you've turned it off and allowed it to go cold. In a nutshell, turning off funding now, even if you
guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its extraordinary long-term value. Second,
things

in

life),

mean to replace it in the next budget, is likely to kill

typical

planetary project .

rather than delay

any

It is the equivalent of axing a farmer's budget in planting season; even if you restore that

funding mid-summer, the harvest just isn't going to be there.

Space colonization is key to human survival.

Schulze-Makuch and Davies 10 (Dirk *Ph.D., School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences at Washington State University; Paul, Ph.D., Beyond
Center at Arizona State University, "To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission
to Mars", Oct/Nov, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html, CMR)

We are a
vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events
such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions
pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are
also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These
include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming,
sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the
There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony.

colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to

survive for the long term .

The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the

Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but
in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for
as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained
colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects
to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an
atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a
range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and
asteroids

a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket
technology.

2NC OV
Obama is pushing to increase the budget for NASA. The
budget line specifically is for getting people to Mars,
which is the crucial first step to a viable method of
colonization, which will first be to Mars, then to Europa
and further. Loss of funding increase destroys effective
colonization
That outweighs and turns the case:
1- Theres no way the aff can guarantee security from
all earthly extinction threats. Whether its terrorism
or asteroids, there will always be threats. Only
space colonization can ensure the prevention of
extinction
2- Failure to have space colonies makes every aff
impact worse- nuclear winter makes things like food
scarcity inevitable. Only contingency plans solve

2NC UQ Wall
Obama is proposing a funding bill for NASA that is critical
to Martian exploration, but Congress wants to slash the
budget further
Kremer, 2/4 [Ken, 2/4/15, speaker, research scientist, freelance science journalist, and
photographer for the Christian Science Monitor, Obama wants $18.5 billion for NASA. What would that
buy? http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0204/Obama-wants-18.5-billion-for-NASA.-What-would-thatbuy]

The Obama Administration today (Feb. 2) proposed a NASA budget allocation

of $18.5 Billion for the new Fiscal Year 2016, which amounts to a half-billion
dollar increase over the enacted budget for FY 2015, and keeps the key
manned capsule and heavy lift rocket programs on track to launch humans to
deep space in the next decade and significantly supplements the commercial
crew initiative to send our astronauts to low Earth orbit and the space station
later this decade. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden formally announced the
rollout of NASAs FY 2016 budget request today during a state of the
agency address at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), back dropped by the
three vehicles at the core of the agencys human spaceflight exploration
strategy; Orion, the Boeing CST-100 and the SpaceX Dragon. To further
advance these plans and keep on moving forward on our journey to Mars,
President Obama today is proposing an FY 2016 budget of $18.5 billion for
NASA, building on the significant investments the administration has made in
Americas space program over the past six years, Administrator Bolden said
to NASA workers and the media gathered at the KSC facility where Orion is
being manufactured. These vehicles are not things just on paper anymore!
This is tangible evidence of what you [NASA] have been doing these past few
years. Bolden said the $18.5 Billion budget request will enable the
continuation of core elements of NASAs main programs including first launch
of the new commercial crew vehicles to orbit in 2017, maintaining the Orion
capsule and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to further NASAs
initiative to send Humans to Mars in the 2030s, extending the International
Space Station (ISS) into the next decade, and launching the James Webb
Space Telescope in 2018. JWST is the long awaited successor to NASAs
Hubble Space Telescope. NASA is firmly on a journey to Mars. Make no
mistake, this journey will help guide and define our generation. Funding is
also provided to enable the manned Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) by
around 2025, to continue development of the next Mars rover, and to
continue formulation studies of a robotic mission to Jupiters icy moon
Europa. Thats a half billion-dollar increase over last years enacted budget,
and it is a clear vote of confidence in you the employees of NASA and the
ambitious exploration program you are executing, said Bolden. Overall the
additional $500 million for FY 2016 translates to a 2.7% increase over FY
2015. That compares to about a 6.4% proposed boost for the overall US
Federal Budget amounting to $4 Trillion. The Boeing CST-100 and the SpaceX
Dragon V2 will restore the US capability to ferry astronauts to and from the
International Space Station (ISS). In September 2014, Bolden announced the
selections of Boeing and SpaceX to continue development and certification of
their proposed spaceships under NASAs Commercial Crew Program (CCP)

and Launch America initiative started back in 2010. Since the retirement of
the Space Shuttle program in 2011, all NASA astronauts have been totally
dependent on Russia and their Soyuz capsule as the sole source provider for
seats to the ISS. The commercial crew vehicles are absolutely critical to our
journey to Mars, absolutely critical. SpaceX and Boeing have set up
operations here on the Space Coast, bringing jobs, energy and excitement
about the future with them. They will increase crew safety and drive down
costs. CCP gets a hefty and needed increase from $805 Million in FY 2015 to
$1.244 Billion in FY 2016. To date the Congress has not fully funded the
Administrations CCP funding requests, since its inception in 2010. The
significant budget slashes amounting to 50% or more by Congress, have
forced NASA to delay the first commercial crew flights of the private space
taxis from 2015 to 2017. As a result, NASA has also been forced to continue
paying the Russians for crew flights aboard the Soyuz that now cost over $70
million each under the latest contract signed with Roscosmos, the Russian
Federal Space Agency. Bolden has repeatedly stated that NASAs overriding
goal is to send astronauts to Mars in the 2030s. To accomplish the Journey to
Mars NASA is developing the Orion deep space crew capsule and mammoth
SLS rocket. However, both programs had their budgets cut in the FY 2016
proposal compared to FY 2015. The 2015 combined total of $3.245 Billion is
reduced in 2016 to $2.863 Billion, or over 10%. The first test flight of an
unmanned Orion atop the SLS is now slated for liftoff on Nov. 2018, following
NASAs announcement of a launch delay from the prior target of December
2017. Since the Journey to Mars goal is already underfunded, significant cuts
will hinder progress.

PC Key
Obamas push is key to get the bill passed in an effective
form
Inquisitr 2/4 [2/4/15, As Obama and Congress Fight Over Details, NASA is

Going to Europa, http://www.inquisitr.com/1813197/as-obama-and-congressfight-over-details-nasa-is-going-to-europa/]

President Obamas administration has proposed a total of $18.5 billion in
funding for NASA, for the Fiscal Year 2016 which constitutes an increase of
$519 million in funding from the Fiscal Year 2015. While the specific details of
the way that funding will break down have yet to be agreed upon by
Congress a process which usually results in changes for individual missions
and projects the overall increase indicates a renewed push for space
exploration and science, as humanity continues to push further into the solar
system. The annual budget proposals for NASA have historically featured
hard-fought negotiations between the White House and Congress each
seeming to have different priorities. The BBC reports that previous years have
seen Congress repeatedly deny funding requests for the commercial crew
program, with the space agency left to contract out the development of a
capsule suitable for the transportation of astronauts to the International
Space Station to Boeing and SpaceX. Currently, the U.S pays for its
astronauts to be ferried there and back by the Russian Soyuz rocket and
capsules. However, Congress regularly places greater emphasis on planetary
science though the current proposals by the Obama administration would
reduce that funding by an estimated $76 million in comparison to the level
ultimately agreed to by Congress in 2015. As reported by The Los Angeles
Times, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) is hopeful that an agreement can be
reached. I think the administrations moving in the right direction, but still
has a long way to go. Its a better budget in many respects than what the
administration proposed in the past, although its still not at the level that
Congress approved even last year.

Impact: Resource Wars

Space access solves inevitable global resource wars
Collins and Autino, 08 [Dr. Patrick Collins, an exceptionally well known
and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch
vehicles, and space solar power, professor of economics at Azabu University
in Japan, AND Adriano Autino, President of Space Renaissance International,
"What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to
Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture
and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International
Academy of Astronautics' 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space,
Arcachon,
France,
25-28
May
2008,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_in
dustry_could_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_pr
otection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml, Evan]
7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation The major source of social
friction, including international friction, has surely always been
unequal access to resources. People fight to control the valuable
resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea . The
natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically
accessible resources even more so. As the population grows , and demand
grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows exponentially.
The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of
"Resource Wars". Having begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa and
South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [37].

is that, if the general public can be

persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as
resources become increasingly scarce . Many commentators have noted the similarity
A particular danger of "resource wars"

of the language of US and UK government advocates of "war on terror" to the language of the novel

a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in

which citizens are reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into near-Earth
"1984" which describes

space is the only alternative to endless "resource wars" As an

alternative to the "resource wars" already devastating many
countries today, opening access to the unlimited resources of nearEarth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security . The US
National Security Space Office, at the start of its report on the potential of space-based solar power ( SSP)
published in early 2007, stated: "Expanding

human populations and declining

natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict
in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the foremost threat to
national security" [38]. The report ended by encouraging urgent research on the feasibility of
SSP: "Considering the timescales that are involved , and the exponential growth of
population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this
work for "drilling up" vs. drilling down for energy security begins
immediately" [38]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a
substantial scale may still be some decades away, it is important to
recognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known
technology is the surest way of ending the threat of resource wars .

if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are

limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars
are inescapable [22,37]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of
space are economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need
for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits of civilisation
which are being eroded today by "resource war-mongers", most notably
That is,

the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and their "neo-con" advisers. It is also worth noting that
the $1 trillion that these have already committed to wars in the Middle-East in the 21st century is orders of
magnitude more than the public investment needed to aid companies sufficiently to start the commercial

Industrial and financial groups which profit from

monopolistic control of terrestrial supplies of various natural
resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in
protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups'
continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor by
democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the
pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by
preventing the development of low-cost space travel . Once the
feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, "resource wars"
are clearly foolish as well as tragic . A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly
use of space resources.

amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens using longrange rockets to fight each other over dwindling
terrestrial resourcesrather than using the same rockets to travel in space and have the use of all the
resources they need!

Colonization Possible
Its feasible we can do it with current tech and build
sustainable living
Schulze-Makuch and Davies 10 - PhD at School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, Washington State University and PhD at Arizona
State University (Dirk, and Paul, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to
Mars http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html)
A human mission to Mars is undoubtedly technologically feasible, but
unlikely to lift off in the very near future, because of the enormous
financial and political commitments associated with it. As remarked,
however, much of the costs and payload of the mission are associated
with bringing the astronauts back to Earth . Furthermore, the returning
astronauts would have to go through an intense rehabilitation
program after being exposed for at least one year to zero gravity and
an extended period to reduced gravity on the surface of Mars. Eliminating the need for
returning early colonists would cut the costs several fold and at the
same time ensure a continuous commitment to the exploration of
Mars and space in general. The first colonists to Mars wouldnt go in
"cold." Robotic probes sent on ahead would establish necessities such as an
energy source (such as a small nuclear reactor augmented by solar panels), enough food for
two years, the basics for creating home-grown agriculture, one or more rover vehicles and a tool-kit
for carrying out essential engineering and maintenance work. In addition, the scientific equipment needed
for the colonists to do important research work should be part of the preceding unmanned [unstaffed]

All this equipment could easily be put into place using current
technology before the astronauts set out. The first human
contingent would rely heavily on resources that can be produced
from Mars such as water, nutrients, and shelter (such as in form of lava tube
mission.

caves). They also would be continuously resupplied from Earth with necessities that could not be produced
from the resources available on Mars. This semi-autonomous phase might last for decades, perhaps even
centuries before the size and sophistication of the Mars colony enabled it to be self-sustaining. The first
human contingent would consist of a crew of four, ideally (and if the budget permits) distributed between
two two-man space craft to allow for some mission redundancy such as in the Viking mission or for the
Mars Exploration Rovers. Also, if any technical malfunction occurs on one space craft, the other craft could
come to the rescue. Further, any critical part of equipment after landing would be available in duplicate in

A one-way human mission to Mars would not be a

one-time commitment as was the case with the Apollo program.
More than 40 years after the last Apollo mission, no human has set
foot on a planetary body beyond Earth. Such a hiatus cannot be
afforded if humanity is to commit to a grander vision of space
exploration (Davies and Schulze-Makuch 2008; Schulze-Makuch and Irwin 2008). No base on
the Moon is needed to launch a one-way human mission to Mars.
Given the broad variety of resources available on Mars, the longterm survival of the first colonists is much more feasible than it
would be on the Moon.
case of an emergency.

Mars colonization is possible; the resources are there and

the environment is suitable
Hender 10 University of Adelaide, School of Mechanical Engineering
(Matthew Colonization: a permanent habitat for the colonization of Mars
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/61315
It has been demonstrated, through numerous measurements,
observations and investigations, that Mars contains all of the
essential elements for the maintenance of life and sustenance of an
established habitat. Virtually every region of Mars has been proposed
as being suitable for locating a habitat, from the poles to the equator, above or below
ground, each with its own advantages and disadvantage s, and each being viable
for various proposed designs. Regional characteristics, such as temperature, wind speed, dist storms and
ground conditions must all be considered in any design. Particularly, a renewable supply of water is
essential. Further, the method, and materials, or fabrication must be considered; utilizing local materials,
or imported; constructed or inflated,; also considering things such as radiation protection, safety, living

Facilities required in the

habitat include those necessary foe living, recreation and working.
Living facilities include life support systems, sleeping environments,
meal preparation and ablution facilities and other such areas.
space, insulation, ease and speed of insulation and redundancy.

Recreational facilities include lounge and reading areas, entertainment facilities and other such facilities to
allow relaxation and diversional activities. Working facilities will include laboratories, office space,

Power supply
options on Mars are many. Depending upon the power demand of facilities, which varies with
the population and industrial requirements. Nuclear is considered to be the mist
viable, due to the reliability and the power generation capability ,
industrial areas( power generation, etc.) workshops, food and other production areas.

however, this will require resupply of nuclear fuel, launched from Earth, and has environmental and safety

Solar (surface or orbital), wind and possible geothermal

energy sources appear to be reliable and viable systems of power
supply, although each has its drawbacks. Options for power storage must also be
considerations associated.

considered, including fuel cells or natural gas (such storage of power is through the manufacture of the
fuel, hydrogen or methane, respectively). Emergency power generation, through mechanical (human-

All significant materials required to

support life and industry are believed to exist on Mars. Processes for
mining, extraction or concentration, as may be required must be
developed and proven, however, this is considered feasible.
Renewable water and atmosphere constituent sources are
considered critical, as are nutrients necessary for the production of
food.
powered) or other means, must also be provided.

Space Col Good

The alternative to space colonization is extinction.
Multiple scenarios would destroy humankind unless we
expand into space.
Gangale, 7 [Thomas, aerospace engineer and a former Air Force officer.
He is currently the executive director at OPS-Alaska, a think tank based in
Petaluma; A Progressive Vision of Human Space Exploration--Important to
California,
a
Leader
in
Aerospace
and
High
Tech,
12/04,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/node/3422/]
Civilizations have risen, fallen, and in time others have risen in their place, but this time the stakes are

If, for some reason, our technological civilization should collapse,

either because of nuclear war, pandemic, climate change, cosmic
impact, or resource depletion, we can never pass this way again. No
greater.

previous culture has been the massive consumer of non-renewable resources that ours is. Each decade
that passes, we must dig deeper and drill farther to extract the materials that fuel the Great Machine. The
advance of technology continually extends our reach for these resources, but these advanced methods
would be far beyond the grasp of a post-apocalyptic agrarian culture trying to make another go of it. What
we think of as non-renewable resources actually are renewable, of course on a geologic time scale. Left to
itself, the Earth would again form subterranean pools of petroleum. Another Industrial Revolution might be
possible on this planet, but only for a species as far removed from us in the future as the trilobites are in

Our civilization has the one and only chance the human race
will ever have to reach beyond this planet and establish itself
elsewhere in the universe . If we miss this opportunity, our species
our past.

will be bound to the Earth until we become extinct. If, on the other
hand, we survive the various threats to the progress of technological
civilization, we will see a branching of the human timeline. Humans
will go to live and work indefinitely on orbiting space platforms, in
lunar settlements, on Mars, and then out to the planet-sized moons
of the gas giants. The process of inhabiting and thriving in ever more extreme environments is
the natural extension of the coldward course of progress, the process by which humans left their tropical

The experience the solar

system explorers, pioneers, and settlers will gain will pave the way
to the stars and beyond. As visionary scientist Carl Sagan (1995) pointed out, this gets the
home-of-origin and ventured into the temperate and polar zones.

human eggs out of the single basket in terms of any sort of catastrophic mass extinction event. It also gets
our eggs out of the basket in terms of the natural processes of passive extinction, where we lose so much
genetic vigor that we can no longer cope with our constantly changing single planetary environment.
Because of the distances involved alone, not to mention the effects of wholly new planetary environments,
in journeying outward we set in motion new speciation and differentiation of the Homo sapiens line. For our

We must engage the grand

environment, and who can say for how long our window of
opportunity will remain open?
species to survive, we must diffuse into the cosmos.

Space colonization key to prevent tech stagnation,

tyranny, war, and genocide need access to more
resources to prevent conflict
Zubrin 11 (Robert, aerospace engineer, June 2011, The Case for Mars:
The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, Updated and Revised
Edition, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
The tendency toward cultural homogenization on Earth can only accelerate in
the twenty-first century. Furthermore, because of rapid communication and

transportation technologies shorting out inter- cultural barriers, it

will become increasingly impossible to obtain the degree of
separation required to develop new and different cultures on Earth. If the
Martian frontier is opened, however, this same process of technological advance will also enable us to
establish a new, distinct, and dynamic branch of human culture on Mars
and eventually more on worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be pre- served on a broader field, but only on a broader

One world will be just too small a domain to allow the

preservation and continued generation of the diversity needed not just to
keep life interesting, but to assure the survival of the human race . Without the opening of a new
frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization also faces the risk of
technological stagnation. To some this may appear to be an odd statement, as the present age is frequently cited
as one of technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of progress within our society has
been decreasing and at an alarming rate. To see this, it is only necessary to step back and
field.

compare the changes that have occurred in the past thirty-five years with those that occurred in the preceding thirty-five years and the
thirty-five years before that. Between 1905 and 1940 the world was revolutionized: Cities were electrified; washing machines and
refrigerators appeared; telephones and broadcast radio became common; home stereos were born; talk- ing motion pictures blossomed into
a grand new art form; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the Wright Flyer to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane.
Between 1940 and 1975 the world changed again, with the introduction of computers, television, antibiotics, nuclear power, Boeing 727s, SR71s, Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets, communication satellites, interplanetary spacecraft, and piloted voyages to the Moon.

Compared to these changes, the technological innovations from

1975 to the present seem insignificant. Immense changes should
have occurred during this period, but did not. Had we been following the previous seventy years* technological

trajectory, we today would have flying cars, maglev (magnetic levitation) trains, robots, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel,
reliable and inexpensive transportation to Earth orbit, undersea cities, open-sea mariculture, and human settlements on the Moon and Mars.

today we see important technological developments, such as

nuclear power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in
controversy we are slowing down. Now, consider a nascent Martian
civilization: Its future will depend critically upon the progress of science
and technology. Just as the inventions produced by the necessities of frontier America were a powerful driving force on
worldwide human progress in the nineteenth century, so the "Martian ingenuity" born in a culture
that puts the utmost premium on intelligence, practical education,
and the determination required to make real contributions will make
much more than its fair share of the scientific and technological
breakthroughs, which will dramatically advance the human condition in the twenty-first century. A prime
example of the Martian frontier driving new technology will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy
production. As on Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial to the success of Mars settlements. The Red Planet does have
one major energy resource that we currently know about: deuterium, which can be used as the fuel in
nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large amounts of deuterium
Instead,

too, but with all of the existing investments in other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that would make possible

The Martian colonists are certain to

be much more determined to get fusion online, and in doing so will massively benefit the
practical fusion power reactors has been allowed to stagnate.

mother planet as well. The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of nineteenth- century America as technology drivers is, if
anything, vastly under- stated. America drove technological progress in the last century because are increasingly being made by a plethora
of regulatory agencies whose officials do not even pretend to have been elected by anyone. Democracy in America and elsewhere in
Western civilization needs a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a frontier people whose civilization incorporates
the ethos that breathed the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans showed Europe in the last century, so in the

There are greater threats that

a humanist society faces in a closed world than the return of oligarchy, and if the frontier
remains closed, we are certain to face them in the twenty-first century. These threats are the spread of
various sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of
political institutions that incorporate the notions that spring from
them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such destructive ideas that tend to spread naturally in a
closed society is the Mallhus theory, which holds that since the world's
resources are more or less fixed, population growth and living standards
must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery.
next the Martians can show us the path away from oligarchy and stagnation.

Malthusianism is scientifically bankruptall predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of
resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate
of innovation. This is why (contrary to .Vlalthus) as the worlds population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an

in a closed society Malthusianism has the

appearance of self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger . It is not enough
to argue against Malthusianism in the abstractsuch debates are not settled in academic journals. Unless people can
see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in
limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea
is accepted that the worlds resources are fixed, then each person is ultimately the enemy
of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of
every other race or nation. The extreme result is tyranny war, and
accelerating rate. Nevertheless,

even genocide . Only in a universe of unlimited resources can all men be brothers.

AT Space Militarization
Space power prevents rogue militarization
Pfaltzgraff 07 Boston Council on Foreign Relations (Robert L., June 18,
"Weapons in Space", http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/BCFR_061807.pdf)
This then represents a good transition to the final part of my presentation.
Large numbers of countries are acquiring missiles that could be
equipped with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads. These
include states such as Iran and North Korea as well as non-state
actors who could have such weapons in the years ahead. Hezbollah
was able to launch thousands of Katuchya rockets against Israel last summer.
The ability of the United States to counter missile proliferation and
to defend itself and its allies depends on continued utilization of
space. Targets identified from space by the United States or by enemies of
the United States could be attacked with missiles or commando strikes or, in
the case of attacks against the United States, by terrorist groups using
satellite imaging easily downloadable from the Internet, as I have already
shown. Finally, we are entering a period in which additional countries
are likely to acquire nuclear forces as well as their own space
capabilities. We spend a great deal of time thinking about North Korea
and Iran. If we cannot halt these programs, as appears to be the
case, we will need to be able to counter them to deter them from
using such weapons or to defend ourselves if they are tempted to
use them. Space affords the arena in which a missile defense could
be deployed, adding a more robust layer to our capabilities. It also
provides essential reconnaissance, surveillance, communications, and other
essential capabilities. Space will also be increasingly important as we
update security assurances to countries that may feel threatened by
North Korea (especially Japan) or by Iran (Israel and NATO Europe). As we
have seen, space militarization and weaponization is already part of
the twenty-first-century security landscape. The importance of space
can only grow in the years ahead.

Space militarization is inevitable.

Oberg 2001 [Jim, NBC News 'Space Consultant', previous space engineer
for NASA, Space Power Theory. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University]
It is almost certain that sometime early in the 21st Century, the
fielding of space-based weapons will occur under the auspices of
defense, in much the same manner as the nuclear weapon buildup
that occurred within the latter half of the 20th . And, like nuclear weapons,
once fielded, there will be no reversing course. This too is an historical
lesson of warfare. As the world now grapples with the proliferation
of nuclear weapons that were once the province of superpowers, so
too will it see the initial weaponization of space be followed by
increasingly sophisticated armaments as proliferation occurs there
as well. A sobering thought is the prospect that as launch costs go down per unit of mass, the
opportunity for other actors to put weapons into orbit about the Earth will go up.

Orbital physics prevents space war.

Moltz, 7 [James Clay, Associated Director and Research Professor at the

Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Department of National Security Affairs,

Naval Postgraduate School November 2007 Space Policy Volume 23, Issue 4,
November 2007, Pages 199-205]
Unlike other environments of international activity, space competition is affected in
unique ways by orbital physics. Compared to the collective good of safe access to
orbital space, we can consider space radiation and debris as collective bads.9 This does not keep states

it does
create significant operational obstacles to continuing such harmful
behavior, as well as stimulating widespread international pressure to
prevent it. These constraints are increasing over time , not
decreasing, as space becomes more crowded. Thus, critics of space arms control
from periodically attempting to overcome these limitations, as seen in China's 2007 test. But

miss the point when they discount the possibility of unique military restraint in space as a fallacy.10

it is a far worse fallacy to believe that states can overcome the

laws of orbital physics. Put simply, orbital warfare on any scale
cannot occur without ruining critical regions of space (such as lowEarth orbit) for other purposes. As few as a dozen explosions
capable of releasing some 420,000 fragments of dangerous space
debriscould effectively shut down this region for decades. Thus, to
expect that countries will act against their own interests by using
space in this way is counterintuitive . To date, we have seen a powerful logic of
Instead,

environmental security at work in space. When countries have crossed the line in terms of damage to
space, they have retreated (or been pushed) backwards by the risk of a loss of access.

**Aff Answers**

Bill Kills Mars Col

Obamas bill deactivates the budget line for the Mars
rover and the Lunar Orbiter, which are key to effective
colonization
Amos, 2/3 [Jonathan, 2/3/15, Science Correspondent for BBC, Obama
Seeks to Raise Nasa Funding, http://www.bbc.com/news/scienceenvironment-31113216]
But two casualties of the budget request could be the Mars Exploration Rover
Opportunity and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is mapping the
Moon. In the presidents request, the budget lines for these two programmes
are reduced to zero in FY2016. It is not a certainty that they will be cancelled,
with Nasa stressing it is open to continued operations if the science cases are
strong and the relatively small sums of money can be found. Opportunity, for
example, only costs about $14m a year to run. The bigger threat to its future
may be mechanical and/or electronic failure. The robot has lost the use of
some of its instruments, no longer has full movement of its arm and routinely
drives backwards because of the wear on its motors. It is also struggling with
significant flash memory problems. But whether its loss is enforced by
circumstance or financial reasoning, the passing would be a blow to
Opportunity's many fans. The rover has travelled more than 40km across the
surface of Mars in its 10-plus years on the planet.

Cuts Dont Kill NASA

Cuts dont get kill programs NASA will find a way to fund
everything
Bodzash
11
(Dennis,
writer
@
Space
News
Examiner,

http://www.examiner.com/space-news-in-national/last-ditch-effort-to-avoidgovernment-shutdown-involves-nasa-cuts) JPG
Ever since the space race ended with Apollo 11, NASA has found itself on the
chopping block as only science, not national pride, has been at stake. Since
NASA's budget (as a part of the total federal budget) peaked in the mid 1960s, NASA has been
operating under less and less money relative to the government as a whole. However,
even as its relative budget has shrank, NASA has always found ways
to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. No doubt, regardless of what the
next government spending bill offers, NASA will continue on its
quest.

NASA will find other means to achieve their goals within

budget constraints
Dreier 13 (Casey, Director of Advocacy at TPS, Top NASA Scientists
Grapple with Budget Cuts, December 10, The Planetary Society,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2013/20131210-top-nasascientists-grapple-with-budget-cuts.html)//DLG
Top NASA scientists tried to focus on the bright side Monday, highlighting
the unprecedented productivity of current space science missions ,
despite a continued future of diminishing budgets . Dr. Ellen Stofan,
NASA's Chief Scientist, and Dr. John Grunsfeld, the head of NASA's Science
Mission Directorate and Hubble-repair astronaut, both emphasized the breadth of
science returns at the 2013 American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. "The positive
thing about meetings like this is that you see our results getting an enormous amount of press and an
enormous amount of support and interest from the American people," said Dr. Stofan. "And the more we

The first few questions from the press

were about the unusually harsh cuts to NASA's Planetary Science Division in recent
years, including more than $200 million in cuts proposed in 2014. In response, Grunsfeld
listed a number of missions currently operating in space , keeping the focus off the
upcoming mission gap in the second half of this decade. He also highlighted the two
planetary missions currently in development. We have plans to go
visit [the asteroid] Bennu with OSIRIS-REx to bring back a pretty
substantial sample. We are back involved with ExoMars 2016 and 2018.
We have InSight, a geophysical monitoring station on Mars, and an
AO for 2020 Mars on the street , Grunsfeld said. OSIRIS-REx is a medium-class planetary
have that, the more were doing our job.

mission that is scheduled to launch in 2016. InSight, a small Discovery-class mission, is also slated for
2016. NASA is contributing a non-scientific communications package to the European Trace-Gas Orbiter in
2016 and the Mars Organic Molecule Analyzer (MOMA) instrument on the ExoMars lander in 2018.
Given

the tough fiscal climate, I actually feel very proud of how

weve been able to try and address almost all of the high-priority
items in the Decadal Surveys," Grunsfeld said. "The one we have the most problem with is
the cadence of missions. We are constrained in missions. Mission cadence refers to how often NASA can
fly a new spacecraft. Keeping a regular cadence is crucial for a healthy scientific community and a reliable
industrial base for engineering design and construction. The National Research Council's Decadal Survey,
which is the official consensus of the scientific community, recommends flying small missions (Discovery-

class) every two years, medium missions (New Frontiers-class), every five years, and a flagship once every
decade. When asked about the next opportunities for scientists to propose small- and medium-class
missions, Jim Green, the Director of NASAs Planetary Science Division said that NASA is planning to
release a draft Discovery mission announcement in 2014. Preparing a draft now, he said, will allow NASA to
react quickly if Congress adds more money to the Planetary Science Division before the year ends. Green
said that the next New Frontiers-class mission will be selected after the peak funding requirements for
OSIRIS-REx are met, which is likely to be after 2015. These releases are just the "Announcements of
Opportunity," which begin a multi-year process of mission selection. Given that no selection will be made
before 2016 or 2017, its likely that the soonest a new mission would be ready to fly would be 2021 or
2022. The Clipper Europa mission concept, currently estimated at $2.1 billion, remains off the table. But

NASA is trying to find creative ways to work within their constraints .

Said Grunsfeld: "Ive challenged [our program managers] to look at other
options: what about Discovery and a half? Or New Frontiers and half? Not a flagship, but something
that would allow us to do one of these challenging missions. The spirit is: lets use technology
and use some of our capabilities to see if we can do 70% of the
science objectives of, say, a Europa mission, at half the cost. That
might be worth the trade.

Space Col Impossible

Space Col nearly impossible - too many barriers, Mars One
proves
Keller 13 (Harry, chair of the Northeastern Section of the American
Chemical Society and as a reviewer for Analytical Chemistry, assistant
professor of chemistry at Northeastern University, PhD in analytical chemistry
from Columbia , Mars One: Exciting Adventure or Hoax?, April 8, ETC Journal
[educational technology & change], http://etcjournal.com/2013/04/08/marsone-exciting-adventure-or-hoax/)//DLG
Problem number one is radiation.

Interplanetary space is filled with solar and cosmic

radiation. The former originates from the Sun and fluctuates on an eleven-year cycle. The latter originates

potentially
deadly. NASA has estimated that a three-year round-trip and visit to Mars
by astronauts would expose them to about one Siemen of radiation,
the recommended lifetime dosage. Annual exposure on Earth at sea level is in the
milliSiemens range. The effects of radiation exposure include cataracts, increased likelihood
of cancer, and sterility . Without radiation shielding on Mars, colonists will be
doomed to very shortened lifespans and would be unlikely to
reproduce. Children, if born, would have even more problems
because rapidly developing cells are even more sensitive to
radiation effects. The reasons that radiation is such a problem on Mars but not on Earth arise
from the two things that shield us Earthlings from radiation: our atmosphere
and the Earths magnetic field. The Martian atmosphere is about 1/100 that of the Earth.
outside of our solar system from cataclysmic star events and black holes. Both are

Essentially all radiation arrives on the surface. Mars has no magnetic field. Scientists postulate that it is
solid to the core and so has no liquid interior to generate a magnetic field. The Earths magnetic field
deflects arriving ionic cosmic rays and solar radiation, although gamma rays are unaffected. This deflection
to our polar radiation is the reason that we see the aurora borealis near our north pole but not near the
equator. Those light displays are caused by energetic ions impacting the atmosphere. The proposed Mars
One habitats have no evident radiation shielding, and radiation is not mentioned on their website. The best
shielding would be a thick layer of liquid hydrogen, but water can also function reasonably well. Oddly ,

metal shielding, unless very thick, makes cosmic radiation worse because
the rays hit metal atom nuclei and create a shower of new radiation
from what was a single ray. The colonists could go underground to avoid radiation, but Mars One has no
such plans. They do hope to build extensions to the shelters from the Martian soil. We dont know how
feasible this plan is or whether the thickness of the soil walls will be sufficient to avoid significant radiation
damage. Moving on past the radiation issues, which may never be adequately resolved, you will
encounter a number of more mundane issues. These fall into two areas: physical and psychological.
Physical Problems The

physical problems have to do with life support and

expansion.

Life requires air, water, food, and shelter. With one percent of Earths atmosphere, Mars
has an atmosphere that we cannot breathe. Its mostly carbon dioxide (95%) anyway with oxygen only as a

colonists must
live in a pressurized environment and must scrub the carbon dioxide
(CO2) from the air to prevent stress and eventual death from
hypercapnia. Oxygen must constantly be generated from some source to
trace component. Even if you compressed it, you still could not breathe it. The

make up for oxygen consumed by the colonists. Plants grown for food can perform the functions of carbon
dioxide removal and oxygen generation, but early plans for Mars One suggest that the space allotted for
plants may not be sufficient for these purposes and must be supplanted by mechanical and chemical
processes, which will require power.

Substantial

supplies of

water will be required

to

support even four colonists who will be living in a water-poor environment. The interior of the habitat may
actually be moist because it will not take much water to saturate the small atmosphere contained there.
Most edible plants transpire, and a moist atmosphere will reduce their water requirements. Water will come
from three sources: water carried on the mission, water recycled from colonists, and water mined from

the best location for water is

near the Martian poles, but the best place for solar energy is near
the Martian equator. We do not yet know if reasonable amounts of
water exist below the Martian surface at the equator . Water is also
the most likely source of oxygen . Electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen
the Martian soil. This last source may be a problem because

gases. Therefore, water is necessary for both its own value and for replenishing air. Because colonists must
venture outside and so step through an airlock, losing air in the process, and because the habitat will
certainly have at least minor leaks, air must be constantly replaced. The initial six
habitat modules have been allocated in pairs. One pair has been reserved for food production. The exact
nature of the plants to be used has not been described by Mars One. Unless colonists have a decent
radiation shield, the plants will neither grow nor reproduce well. Assuming such a shield is available, the
plants must convert sunshine to edible plant matter. The solar intensity is about 43% of that on Earth,
which will necessitate the use of efficient plants that can grow well in eternally cloudy Earth climes. Most

its
unclear whether the amount of space allocated for food production
will suffice to feed the entire colony . Even if the space is adequate, the diet will
be monotonous. The inefficiency of animals for food sources means that the entire diet must be
food plants must have strong sunlight. Hybrids may be developed to compensate. Even so,

vegan. Yeast or similar organisms must be grown as well to provide B12, which cannot be obtained from
strictly plant sources. Colonists will never again see a steak or filet of fish. They will have eggs or milk
products. They wont even have the produce of trees nuts, apples, citrus, etc. There will be no pepper,
cinnamon, or vanilla. Only the most efficient plants can be utilized for food on Mars. The variety will
certainly be limited. We cannot yet tell if colonists can grow some ginger or basil to help alleviate the
monotony of diet. Shelter will remain a serious problem for the foreseeable future.
Four people will inhabit six small modules of which four are reserved for mechanical and food purposes.

The shelter must remain airtight and insulating at all times. Temperatures on the
Martian surface drop to far below freezing at night. Although the atmosphere is extremely thin, very strong

sandstorms that can erode anything exposed outside, including the

materials from which shelters are built must be strong enough to
withstand the winds but light enough to ship to Mars, a real
engineering challenge. NASA's Curiosity Rover NASAs Curiosity Rover Heat will be
lost through the walls of the habitat even with the best insulation. This heat must be replaced.
The Mars colonists will find absolutely no coal, no oil, and no natural gas to use as
an energy source. Only solar and wind energy will be available unless they bring along
winds create

shelters. The

a nuclear power generator. Small ones, such as is being used by NASAs Curiosity rover, can provide some
power but not enough for this purpose. Heat will be a serious issue for Mars One. Their plans call for large

plans
do not show calculations for expected energy capture during the long
Martian winters. With a year twice as long as ours, winters are also twice as long. In
addition, batteries must store this captured solar energy. Lots of batteries will be
flexible solar panels to be rolled out onto the Martian surface to capture the wan sunlight. The

needed to hold enough energy for heating and other purposes such as oxygen generation throughout the

Even the most

efficient batteries are heavy and will have to be lifted from Earth to
Mars at $10,000 per pound. The colonists must work outside of their habitat in the harsh
Martian environment and so must have Mars suits that are the equivalent of space suits. Maintaining
these will be crucial to extending the colony. Without petrochemical sources,
its unclear what materials will be used to replace the plastic
components of these suits. If the colony is to be self-sustaining, it must
be able to expand using local materials. Water is too precious to use for
Martian nights. The Mars One information does not include battery specifications.

concrete or even adobe if the basic materials could be obtained. Note that cement
requires lots of heat to make. To make iron, iron ore and enormous amounts
of energy are needed. Converting iron to steel requires more energy and lots of carbon, but
making

Mars has no fossil fuels as sources of carbon. Similarly, copper, zinc, and tin all require massive amounts of
energy

far more than the solar arrays will provide .

Colonists will have to expand

hightechnology required for manufacturing these arrays will be far beyond

the capabilities of the Martian colony . With nothing to export, the colonists will
have to depend on Earth to send them the needed materials and will become
their solar arrays as they expand the colony if such expansion can be done at all. The

interplanetary beggars. If they have children, theyll have to expand their food tanks. Of what will they
construct them? Indeed, what building materials will the colonists have for any purpose, even for making

Medical issues have not even been considered. The

colonists would not have any access to modern medicine . They would have
cooking pots or childrens toys?

to be carefully screened for genetic factors that predispose to disease. Medical problems that we can
handle readily here would result in death on Mars. Psychological Pressures Even if power, air, water,

colonists must
error by one colonist

food, shelter, and building materials can be resolved, a very unlikely result, the

face extreme psychological pressures. A single small

can kill them all. This could happen on any day. Only digital material

could be imported from

Earth on a regular basis. With sufficient power, the colonists could watch videos and listen to music.
However, conversation with Earth-bound families and friends would not be possible. The round-trip delay
for radio transmission is between 6 and 40 minutes. Say, Hello, and you hear a response 20 minutes
later on average. All communication with Earth would be asynchronous.

What would it take to

make life on Mars bearable?

How could you overcome the monotony of food, of view, of

company, of smells, of cramped living spaces? You would never smell a pine forest again or see the ocean.
There are no amber waves of grain or even cityscapes. Youll have no blue skies or clouds and no hope of

Youll be subject to extreme cabin fever. It

colonists will be in a constant state of stress from a long
list of sources. How can you stand this sort of stress? The answer typically lies in hope for the
ever experiencing them again in person.
looks like Mars

future, in the belief that youre building something for your children and future generations. Unless the
problems of radiation, power, water, building materials, repairing and replacing Mars suits, and the rest are
solved, youve just sentenced yourself to a life in prison, and that prison is the closest thing to hell that any
living person can experience over protracted periods. Without hope, Mars One is doomed today.

Takes Too Long

Colonization is useless- cant get of Earth fast enough
Nikos Prantzos, nuclear astrophysicist in the Institut d'Astrophysique de
Paris, France Our Cosmic Future, 2000 p. 84

scientists are dreaming of ways to bring

Their motivation is
certainly not a solution to overpopulation problems on Earth . Even
though Mars has an area equal to all the land area on Earth, it would be impossible to
transport any significant fraction of the population. In order to send
a hundred million people (which constitutes a negligible fraction of the
present population) , in let us say one century, three thousand
departures would have to be organised each day . Therefore, the fascination for
Not only science fiction readers, but also quite a few

life to other planets in the Solar System, and in particular to Mars.

terraforming Mars is more closely related to the new frontier it represents. Conquest of such a frontier
would help our civilisation to release its creative potential and find new vitality. Some have compared the
situation with the American frontier, several centuries ago.

Takes too long- Space colonization would take hundreds of

thousands of years.
Nikos Prantzos, nuclear astrophysicist in the Institut d'Astrophysique de
Paris, France Our Cosmic Future, 2000 p. 152-3
Another important question is raised by the discussion in the last section, for reasons which will become

If the human species ever masters the art of

interstellar travel, either slow or rapid, how long will it take to expand across the
whole Galaxy and settle in even the most distant regions? It is clearly difficult to give a reasonable
answer to this question. A lower limit is imposed by the size of the Galaxy, which measures
almost a hundred thousand light-years in diameter (see Fig. z.z) . Even
using relativistic vehicles, cruising at nearly the speed of light,
hundreds of thousands of years would be needed just to cross the
Milky Way. In slow-moving world ships, with speeds of a few thousandths the speed of light, the time
clear in the rest of this chapter.

required to cross the Galaxy becomes hundreds of times greater again, of the order of ten million years.
The time required to colonise would clearly be greater still.

Turn: Space Militarization

Space exploration leads to militarization.
Duvall & Havercroft '6 *Professor of Political Science @ Univ. of
Minnesota and Associate Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study
of Global Change AND **Assistant Professor in the Political Science
Department at the University of Oklahoma (Raymond and Johnathan, March
2006, "Taking Sovereignty Out of This World: Space Weaponization and the
Production of Late-Modern Political Subjects," Ebsco, RG)
The weaponization of space the act of placing weapons in outer space has an
intimate relationship to space exploration , in that the history of the former
is embedded in the latter, while the impetus for space exploration, in turn, is embedded in

histories of military development. Since the launch of Sputnik, states that have ability to access and
hence to exploreouter space have sought ways in which that access could improve their military

the U.S. military in particular have

had a strong interest in the military uses of space forthe last half century. Early
capabilities. Consequently, militaries in general and

on, the military interest in space had two direct expressions: enhancingsurveillance; and developing
rocketry technologies that could be put to use for earth-based weapons, such as missiles. Militaries also
have a vested interest in the dual-use technologies that are often developed in space exploration

While NASA goes to great lengths in its public relations to

stress the benefits to science and the (American) public of its space
explorations, it is noteworthy that many of the technologies
developed for those missions also have potential military use . The
missions.

multiple interests that tie together space exploration andspace weaponization have been vigorously
pursued and now are beginning to be substantially realized by a very small number of militaries, most
notably that of the United States. For example, since the 1990 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military has
increasingly reliedon assets in space to increase its C3I (Command, Control, Communication, and
Intelligence) functions. Most of these functions are nowrouted through satellites in orbit. In addition, new
precision weapons, such as JDAM bombs, and unmanned drones, such as the Predator,rely on Global
Positioning System satellites to help direct them to their targets, and often these weapons communicate
with headquarters through satellite uplinks.

Space weaponization would cause the worst war in

history.
Gordon R. Mitchell, member of CSIS Working Group on Theater Missile
Defenses in the Asia-Pacific Region,
FLETCHER FORUM ON WORLD AFFAIRS, Winter 2001, p. 1-ff
If we weaponize space, we will face a very different imagethe image of
hundreds of weapons-laden satellites orbiting directly over our
homes and our families 24 hours a day, ready to fire within seconds. If
fired, they would destroy thousands of ground, air, and space targets within minutes, before there is even
a chance of knowing what has happened, or why.

we should avoid at all costs .

This would be a dark future, a future

A buildup of space weapons with capability to execute

offensive missions might begin with noble intentions of peace through strength deterrence, but this
rationale glosses over the tendency that the

presence of space weapons will

result in the increased likelihood of their use .

Military commanders desiring to

harness the precision strike capability afforded by spacebased smart weapons might order deliberate

The dizzying speed of space warfare

would introduce intense use or lose pressure into strategic
calculations, with the specter of splitsecond laser attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting death
stars with automated hair trigger devices . In theory, this automation would enhance
attacks on enemy ground targets in a crisis.

by taking the decision to

commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with
authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of
accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed complexly interactive, tightly
survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However,

coupled industrial systems, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each others
flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all
the different ways such systems could fail. He further explains, [t]he odd term normal accident is meant
to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are

Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays

or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable , given the
susceptibility of such systems to normal accidents. It is chilling to
contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to Bowman,
even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with
inevitable.

such high velocity that it can do enormous damageeven more than

would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!

In the same laser

technology touted by President Reagan as the quintessential tool of peace, David Langford sees one of the
most

wicked

offensive

weapons

ever

conceived:

One imagines dead cities of

microwave-grilled people.

Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to

imagine that any nation subjected to a space weapon attack would escalate by retaliating with maximum
force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons.

An accidental war

sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into

the most destructive military conflict ever seen .

TPA

Topshelf

1NC
TPA will pass now with Obama pushing
Donnan 1-27 [Shawn, 1/27/15, Financial Times Reporter, "US trade chief says Pacific deal is
close", Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/780076d2-a62f-11e4-abe900144feab7de.html#axzz3QG4i9ICZ]

Republicans now in control of Congress have indicated they are

willing to give what is more commonly known as fast-track
authority to the president and senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate finance
committee, reiterated that sentiment on Tuesday. But it does face opposition from
some Democrats. Several senators from the presidents party
expressed scepticism over the administrations claims that trade agreements would help

create higher paying jobs for middle class workers. They also pressed Mr Froman to do more to address the
issue of currency manipulation in trade negotiations, something the administration has resisted. Business

resistance is unlikely to prove enough to stop the push

for trade promotion authority going through Congress in the coming
weeks. Mr Froman said the Obama administrations trade push was part of
its efforts to help boost the US economy and create higher-paying
jobs at a time when stagnant wages and rising inequality are top of
the political agenda. These efforts have contributed greatly to Americas economic comeback,
groups believe that

Mr Froman said. US exports had grown nearly 50 per cent since 2009, reaching a record high of $2.3tn in
2013 and supporting 11.3m jobs, he said.

<<Insert Link Here>>

PC is key to TPA and trade dealsthat solves structural
impediments that otherwise tank the economy
WSJ 12-28 [12/18/14, Wall Street Journal, Charles Boustany and Robert B. Zoellick, Mr. Boustany
(R., La.) is a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he serves on the
Subcommittee on Trade. Mr. Zoellick served as U.S. trade representative, deputy secretary of state, and
president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress,"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-thenew-congress-1419811308]

the presidency relied on

the power to persuade. Its time for Mr. Obama to persuade on
Prof. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that

trade. He must make use of the convening power of the executive to

bolster his advocacy. His administration must work closely with
Congress to listen, explain, address problems and cut deals . So why
Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew
Research reported that 79% of Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost
in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living expenses for
familiesoffering higher earnings and cutting taxes on trade. Manufacturing workers who produce
does trade matter? First,

exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can
be traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade
policy has focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade
negotiators also use free-trade agreements (FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce. In

such business services as software, finance, architecture

and engineering employed 25% of American workers, more than
recent years,

twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service employees earned

over 20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in
business services. Over the past five years, the World Bank reports, about 75% of the worlds growth has
been in emerging markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade. As Americas highly productive
farmers and ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales. With the boom in
U.S. energy innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in that sector,
too. American families, and businesses, benefit from higher incomes and lower-priced imports. The World
Trade Organization reports that the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round, the last
big global trade agreement, have increased the purchasing power of an average American family of four
by $1,300 to $2,000 every year. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the new

the U.S. and

world economies desperately need a shift from extraordinary
governmental spending and zero-interest-rate monetary policies to
growth led by the private sector. Sustained growth can only be
generated by private investment, innovation and purchases.
American companies need greater confidence in free-enterprise
policies before investing their big cash reserves. Trade policy offers
trade deals in the works could offer that family another $3,000 or more a year. Second,

an international partnership to overcome structural impediments to

growth .

The negotiations for the TPP, for example, aim to create an open trade and investment

network among the U.S., six current FTA partners, and five new ones. The biggest additional market is
Japan, a pivotal Pacific ally. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to use the TPP to press his own
economy toward more competition, without which his goal of reviving Japan will falter. Vietnam and
Malaysia would also take part; they believe they can use the rules and disciplines of the TPP to boost
growth, improve industries and services, expand global linkages, and avoid the so-called middle income
trap, where countries lack of productivity growth slows the rise to higher incomes.

Nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, 9
[Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the principal drafter of Global
Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit,
Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, The Washington Quarterly, April,
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the
future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of
outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,

the Great Depression is not

the lessons to be drawn from that period include the
harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies
(think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability
of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same
period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth
century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow
would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as
history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that
likely to be repeated,

they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and
nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda.

Terrorisms

appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East

and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025,
however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place
some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attack and

newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that

become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic

outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The

most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of
U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed
Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security
arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons,
and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions . It is not clear
that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers
for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of
low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear
umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation

and broader conflict if clear red

lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with
underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent
difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack .

The lack of
strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and

missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place

more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading
to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist
practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive
countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy
supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if
government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for
example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the
survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will
have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns
are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization
efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military.

Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased

tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities
for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer
in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water
resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a
more dog-eat-dog world. What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves
patterns. Despite widespread changes in the world today, there is little to suggest that the future will not resemble the

the trend toward greater

diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for a couple
of decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new
global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth
in regional blocs, and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the
past in several respects. The report asserts that, under most scenarios,

international scene could either strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II
institutions, or could further fragment it and incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of
actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of
transnational challenges facing the international community. Because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout,
the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political and economic policies rather than fully
adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the
primary burden for dealing with terrorism, climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other system maintenance
issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and cumbersome to
undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental
organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues, increasingly will populate the landscape but
are unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at

greater inclusiveness, to reflect the emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to
tackle transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the agenda of

An ongoing financial crisis

and prolonged recession would tilt the scales even further in the
direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international system
with a heightened risk of conflict. The report concluded that the
rising BRIC powers (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) seem averse to
challenging the international system, as Germany and Japan did in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could
change if their widespread hopes for greater prosperity become
frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing
world turn negative.
organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted.

2NC OV
TPA will pass in the status quo because Obama is pushing
for it. However the plan costs Obama too much PC and
makes the TPA collapse. Without the agreement,
structural impediments to the economy such as zero
interest rate monetary policies make economic collapse
inevitable. That leads to nuclear war; terrorism, Iranian
nukes, and energy scarcity.
That outweighs and turns the case:
1- Harris and Burrows are both descriptive and predictive;
economic collapse will trigger nuclear war; thats above,
and means you should prefer our impact on probability.
Timeframe is fast, the economy is still recovering, and
this agreement is critical to get the economy back on
track. Magnitude is extinction, Harris and Burrows
isolate several different warrants for conflict and
extinction: Iran, energy scarcity, terrorism, and increased
risk of miscalc should all be treated as independent
impacts

2NC UQ Wall
It has Boehners vote of good faith
Politico, 1/29 [Victoria Guida, 1-29-2015, "Fincher pulls trigger on Ex-Im
bill", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/morningtrade/0115/morningtrade16915.html]
BOEHNER: TPA CERTAINLY LIKELY: House Speaker John Boehner doesnt see many areas of
cooperation with President Barack Obama, but in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday he

included trade promotion authority on a short list of legislation that

could get signed into law. I think getting the trade promotion
authority for the president that he's asked for is certainly likely ,
Boehner said. Three other items that could move with help from the White House are an authorization of
the use of military force to deal with ISIS and other threats around the world, a long-term infrastructure bill
and cybersecurity legislation, he said.

Beef lobbying gets some dems on board

Politico, 1/27 [Victoria Guida, 1/27/15, "Froman faces congressional
grilling TPP show will go on Ag groups lobbying for TPA", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/morningtrade/0115/morningtrade16871.html]
NCBA READY TO ROUND UP TPA VOTES: The National Cattlemens Beef Association,
another group with a strong interest in tapping the full potential of
the Japanese market through TPP, came out Monday in favor of TPA
legislation. Weve got some friends on the Democratic side we can talk
to; I think that may help us, said NCBA President Bob McCan, a south Texas cattle rancher.
Certainly, weve got a tremendous amount of new people that we
helped actually a lot of them get elected through our PAC and
different things we do.

Bipartisan support for TPA now, but itll require

substantial bargaining
Daschle and Lott, 1/16 [1/16/15, Former Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)

and Trent Lott (R-Miss.), "A chance to prove bipartisanship is possible", The
Hill, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/229700-a-chance-to-provebipartisanship-is-possible]
Part of the problem is that despite all the calls for bipartisanship, there have
been few legislative opportunities that could serve as a catalyst for
sustained cooperation across party lines. A true catalyst for bipartisanship needs to
be more than an easy, hollow endorsement. It needs to be the product of tough
compromises, a substantive victory of the broader national interest
over narrow parochial interests. In fact, we have one such
opportunity within our reach that has all the markings of a potential
bipartisanship fire starter: trade. Key leaders in the Republican
Party, including House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (Ky.), have already made clear that they support major pillars of
President Obamas trade agenda. Leaders of the committees that
oversee trade in Congress have also worked together in a bipartisan
manner as recently as last year on key portions of the presidents agenda, an opportunity
that exists once again in the year ahead. Economically, there is no question that

expanding trade would benefit the national interest over parochial

interests. According to Professor Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck Business School, trade liberalization
has raised Americas GDP by 10 percvent. In todays terms, thats more than $13,600 for every family in
America, every year.

Theres a narrow window for passage

Jiang, 1/30 (Sijia, 1/30/2015, "Proposed Asia-Pacific free trade area signals

start of new era of trade cooperation", South China Morning Post,

http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1695173/proposed-asiapacific-free-trade-area-signals-start-new-era-trade]
Negotiations for TPP started in 2005 but have dragged on because
of the difficulties of getting all the members to agree on the thorny
issues of intellectual property, labour and environmental standards, and also because of
differences within the American political dispensation. "We are hearing there is a US political
window of opportunity over the next couple of months, where there
might be an agreement between Congress and the president on fasttrack authority," Bollard said. President Barack Obama, who is seeking trade
promotion authority from his own Democratic Party as well as the
Republicans, last week said in his State of the Union address to
Congress that the US, not China, should be writing world trade rules.
"I think he's just saying to his countrymen that they've got a chance to set the standard with TPP that
would be a new standard for regional and international trade agreements. That's a visionary statement,
[but] yet to be seen whether achievable," Bollard said.

TPA Key to Trade

TPA is key to trade deals
WSJ, 1/13 (William A. Galston, 1/13/15, "A Fight Obama Needs to Have
With Democrats", WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/william-galston-a-fightobama-needs-to-have-with-democrats-1421192452]

United States Trade Representative Michael Froman is undaunted. He has conducted the TPP negotiations,
he insists to me in an interview, with the lessons of the past, including the 1994 North American Free Trade
Agreement, firmly in mind. In fact, he says, This is the renegotiation of Nafta that Obama talked about as
a candidate in 2008, a process that will produce breakthroughs in areas of concern such as labor rights

TPP will be the most progressive

trade agreement in history. Whether this will be enough to mollify his Democratic critics
and environmental protection. He predicts that

remains to be seen. Mr. Froman also expresses confidence that he could conclude a draft TPP treaty with
our trade partners. The reason: Everyone

is motivated to get it done.

Explaining their shared determination, he underscored the
significance of Japans decision to participate in the negotiating
process: By opening Japans market, everyone will benefit. Trade experts and
veterans of past negotiations believe that attaining this goal
requires trade- promotion authoritythe sooner the better. Without TPA, they
say, our negotiating partners would be reluctant to put their best and
final offers on the table. One former government official told me that Japanese Prime Minister
Shinz Abe had made this link clear in a private conversation. A draft TPP that failed to crack open Japans
agricultural market would disappoint many U.S. lawmakers and weaken support for the agreement.

Everyone with whom I have talked stresses how vital TPA is to a

manageable legislative process. Without a closed rule that prohibits
amendments in the House and its functional equivalent in the
Senate, which is what TPA amounts to, the draft would be exposed
to hundreds of special-interest amendments. It is hard to believe that the House
and Senate would be as likely to endorse an up-or-down vote after the draft TPP is unveiled than they are
right now. Amendments would force U.S. representatives back to the bargaining table.

PC Key
Dems are on the fenceonly a strong Obama push can get
TPA passed
Needham, 1/28 (Vicki, 1/28/15, "New Democrats want assurances on
party support on trade", TheHill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231082new-democrats-want-assurances-on-party-support-on-trade]
A group of House Democrats who stand ready to support President
Obamas trade agenda are asking Senate Democrats and the White

House to take the lead on a historically difficult issue for their

party. The 46-member New Democrat Coalition is likely key to the
Obama administrations efforts to round up enough votes so
Congress can pass a trade promotion authority bill. So they want
reassurances that they do not stand alone on the prickly issue that is
pitting some liberal Democrats against Obama, a House Democratic aide told
The Hill. To that end, New Democrats want the Senate to be the first to
consider a trade promotion authority bill, also known as fast-track, which
would give Congress up-or-down votes on any trade agreements, such as the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that reach Capitol Hill. A vote in support is
much easier when their senators also are backing trade, the aide said. That
political cover could come, for a start, from Democrats on the Senate Finance
Committee where Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is eager to push a bill
through his committee by the end of February. For his part, U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman reiterated during hearings Tuesday on
Capitol Hill the Obama administrations commitment to convincing
Democrats to back fast-track and the trade deals. He referred to the
whole-government approach of building support, which includes a
full-court press from the presidents Cabinet. In fact, the Obama
administrations two-year long campaign to get trade-friendly
Democrats on board is working, a House Democratic aide said. Rep.
Ron Kind of Wisconsin, chairman of the New Democrats, has been
outspoken in advocating for a new way to negotiate trade
agreements while urging other members of his party to look hard at
a world without the United States leading on trade. "I also think we
need a proactive, aggressive trade agenda thats going to work for American
workers and our businesses," Kind said Wednesday on C-SPANs Washington
Journal. Kind's group is making its case to their own party on two
points the trade deals will raise global labor and environmental
standards a major issue for them and those who might oppose
the deals are settling for a status quo thats worse for American
workers, an aide said. "Thats why the administration is trying to get core
labor and environmental standards in the body of the agreement, so that we
can push standards up from where they are, rather than trying to compete
with China in a race to the bottom, Kind said. At a House Ways and Means
Committee hearing on Tuesday with Froman, Kind said it doesnt make sense
for lawmakers to wholly oppose the trade deals before seeing them. So he is
urging the most vocal fast-track opponents such as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (DConn.) to be engaged in trade negotiations." Its up to each Member of

Congress to be personally engaged in that effort." Kind also pushed back ask
the assertion made by many opposed Democrats that Froman and his team
arent providing enough information on the trade deals. The USTR team
thats negotiating these agreements are on Capitol Hill all the time, Kind
said on C-SPAN. "They walk through text, and they show Members different
chapters of whats being discussed so that Congress can guide them on what
the negotiating objectives need to be, he said. House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) told The Hill in a recent interview that while her members
have many concerns on trade she won't decide whether she will support fasttrack until she has seen what's included in the TPP. Meanwhile, House and
Senate Republicans have expressed support for fast-track and moving
forward with trade agreements like the TPP. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)
said I think getting the trade promotion authority for the president
that he's asked for is certainly likely, on Fox News's Special Report
with Bret Baier on Wednesday night. But Democrats have been more
cautious, with many opposing the ambitious trade agenda over
concerns that the deals will ship U.S. jobs overseas and damage the
economy. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that
the administration "is making an effort, in my view, to work with
members on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this process is
transparent. Still, he wants to allay Democratic concerns before
lending support. "Steps are being taken to raise that confidence, and
if that occurs I think that it's possible for a significant number of
members to support both TPA and TPP. But I think those concerns
need to be met."

Obama can get TPA if it remains his priority

Needham, 1/27 (Vicki, 1/27/15, "Trade chief pitches fast-track to

Congress", The Hill, https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-alobbying/230949-trade-chief-pitches-fast-track-to-congress]

Froman called the push a whole government effort, moblizing the
president and the Cabinet fully to get Congress to approve the TPA
and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) pressed Froman to ratchet up efforts to convince
Democrats to get on board with fast-track authority as well as the broader
trade agenda. In response, Froman highlighted the 18 months that he
and his trade team have spent canvassing Capitol Hill talking to
lawmakers from both parties about trade. He said the Cabinets
fresh efforts should bolster support. Republicans on the Senate Finance
Committee voiced support for passage of a fast-track bill and sought
confirmation from Froman that the president would take the lead. Froman told
Republican Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) that the president has made his
support clear, reflected in his move to employ his entire Cabinet in
the effort. I have a great deal of support from the president on
down, its a priority for him, Froman said. Coats said that the presidents
call during his State of the Union address a week ago for Democrats and
Republicans to back him on trade brought the GOP to its feet faster than any
other issue. To get this done it has to be all-in, it has to be above
partisan politics, its got to be done in a bipartisan way, Coats said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested the president would have to

work the phone with senators to guarantee the 60 votes needed
to move a TPA bill.

Obamas lobbying with dems is key to TPA

Berman, 1/22 (Russell, 1/22/15, associate editor at The Atlantic, where he
covers political news. He was previously a congressional reporter for The Hill
and a Washington correspondent for The New York Sun., "Will Democrats
Spoil Obama's Trade Initiatives?", Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/will-democrats-spoilobamas-trade-initiative/384716/]
The question now is, can Democrats stop the Obama-GOP alliance?
They couldn't in 2011, when the Republican-led House and a Democratic Senateapproved long-stalled

This time around, the mobilization

has started early, with Democrats in both the House and Senate
trying to blunt any momentum from Obama's State of the Union call.
deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

"We will do what we can in the Senate to defeat this unfortunate proposal," declared Bernie Sanders, the
Vermont liberal who is considering a long-shot bid for the presidency. American workers, he said, should

While
Republicans are generally, as Ryan put it, a "pro-trade party," there
is division within their ranks as well. Speaker John Boehner has said
he'll need Democratic votes to pass the fast-track legislation in the
House, and the Obama administration is now making lobbying calls
to Democrats. It's an awkward conundrum for the lame-duck president. Big new trade
deals may be one of the few legacy-building items Obama can
extract from the Republican Congress in his final two years, but he'll
have to fight with his friends to get them.
not "have to compete against people in Vietnam who have a minimum wage of 56 cents an hour."

AT Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link

TPA can still go either wayDems are strong and only a
push by the White House will get it passed
Politico, 1/21 (Doug Palmer and Adam Behsudi, 1/21/2015, "Michael

Froman, liberal Democrats clash on trade authority", POLITICO,

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/michael-froman-liberal-democratstrade-authority-114473.html]
But Democrats said they were confident they could muster the votes
necessary to defeat the legislation, which has the backing of GOP
leadership in both chambers. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) signaled his
willingness to lead the anti-fast-track fight in the Senate, where 54
Republicans would only need six Democrats to prevent a filibuster.
We will do what we can in the Senate to defeat this unfortunate proposal, he said at the Capitol Hill press

The opposition in both chambers will be countered by an allout push by the White House to get fellow Democrats to pledge their
support. DeLauro cited letters and statements from the last Congress, in which a bipartisan group of
conference.

190 members in total voiced some level of opposition to the legislation, as a starting point for fighting the

A broad majority of the 188 Democrats in the House are expected

to oppose the legislation, if past votes are any indication. But with
the GOP now holding a 246-seat majority, those opposed to the bill
will have to rely on Republican defections to reach the 218-vote
threshold needed to defeat the bill. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said she toured the
bill.

Detroit auto show last week with her states fellow freshman lawmakers and said the Republicans among
them made no commitment to the legislation when asked about it. Were

in that education
process, but people are not running to sign up for it either, she said at

the press conference, adding that separate letters opposing fast track legislation and demanding rules in
the trade deals to guard against currency manipulation are being circulated among House freshmen.

Bipartisan support for TPA now, but itll require

substantial bargaining
Daschle and Lott, 1/16 [Former Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Trent

Lott (R-Miss.), 1/16/2015, "A chance to prove bipartisanship is possible",

TheHill, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/229700-a-chance-to-provebipartisanship-is-possible]
Part of the problem is that despite all the calls for bipartisanship, there have
been few legislative opportunities that could serve as a catalyst for
sustained cooperation across party lines. A true catalyst for bipartisanship needs to
be more than an easy, hollow endorsement. It needs to be the product of tough
compromises, a substantive victory of the broader national interest
over narrow parochial interests. In fact, we have one such
opportunity within our reach that has all the markings of a potential
bipartisanship fire starter: trade. Key leaders in the Republican
Party, including House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (Ky.), have already made clear that they support major pillars of
President Obamas trade agenda. Leaders of the committees that
oversee trade in Congress have also worked together in a bipartisan
manner as recently as last year on key portions of the presidents agenda, an opportunity
that exists once again in the year ahead. Economically, there is no question that
expanding trade would benefit the national interest over parochial

interests. According to Professor Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck Business School, trade liberalization
has raised Americas GDP by 10 percvent. In todays terms, thats more than $13,600 for every family in
America, every year.

AT No TPP
TPP is closeObama just needs Trade Promotion Authority
to wrap it up
Donnan 1/27 (Shawn, Financial Times Reporter, 1/27/15, "US trade chief
says Pacific deal is close", Financial Times,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/780076d2-a62f-11e4-abe900144feab7de.html#axzz3QG4i9ICZ]

An ambitious Pacific Rim trade pact between the US, Japan and 10
other economies is nearing completion, the top US trade official said
on Tuesday as the Obama administration stepped up its campaign to
secure congressional authority to conclude a deal. The comments
from Mike Froman, the US trade representative, are another sign
that the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would cover 40 per
cent of global economic output, is coming closer to fruition after more
than five years of negotiations. Chief negotiators from the 12 TPP
countries are meeting in New York this week while officials from the
US and Japan are due to meet separately in Washington to try to
conclude their own bilateral discussions over agricultural products
and cars. The contours of a final [TPP] agreement are coming into
focus, Mr Froman told committees in the Senate and House of
Representatives on Tuesday. We think everyone is focused on getting
this [TPP] done...in a small number of months. Mr Froman has
refused repeatedly to set a target for concluding the TPP negotiations,
insisting that the content of a deal would determine timing. But people close
to the talks say the US is determined to wrap them up in the first half
of 2015 so as to put an agreement before Congress for a vote before
the campaign for the 2016 US presidential election heats up. John
Key, New Zealands prime minister, said his discussions with Mr
Froman and other TPP leaders at the World Economic Forum in
Davos last week led him to believe a deal was at hand. There seems
to be strong feeling that a successful TPP could be negotiated in the
first half of this year, Mr Key said. There was more confidence the TPP
will be concluded than the US-Europe [trade agreement] and the view
expressed to me by Mike Froman was that they really felt they were getting
quite close. In his testimony to Congress on Tuesday Mr Froman said
important progress had been made in the TPP negotiations over
market access and in addressing issues such as intellectual property,
digital trade and the treatment of state-owned enterprises. He also
reiterated President Barack Obamas call in his State of the Union
address last week for the administration to be given what is formally
known as Trade Promotion Authority. The US Constitution gives Congress
domain over international commerce. But ever since Richard Nixon the
legislature has delegated the authority to negotiate trade agreements to
presidents, setting broad goals and promising to hold simple up-or-down
votes within 90 days on any pact brought before it. That authority last
expired in 2007 and Mr Obama needs it again in order to conclude

both the TPP and a slower-moving negotiation with the European

Union over an even bigger potential agreement.

AT Obama Not Pushing

Of course Obamas pushing
The Hill, 1/21 (Vicki Needham, 1/20/15, "Obama makes trade case to
both parties", TheHill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/230143-obama-makesthe-case-to-both-parties-for-trade]
President Obama urged both political parties on Tuesday night to give
him the powers he needs to negotiate global trade deals. In his
State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the president argued
that trade promotion authority will help Congress pass highstandard agreements that will put the United States in the forefront
of the global trading arena. "Thats why I'm asking both parties to
give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade
deals from Asia to Europe that aren't just free, but fair," he said in his first address before a Republicancontrolled Congress.

**Aff**

No TPP/TPA
TPP and TPA support is dwindling
Jacobi 1/27 (Stephen, 1/27/15, executive director of the NZ-US Council,
"Stephen Jacobi: Clock ticks on trade talks as detractors grow", New Zealand
Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?
c_id=3&amp;objectid=11392095]
First, the United States President and Congress have yet to agree on
the over-riding objectives of US trade policy. The Congressional election and the
new US Congress, which has now taken office, may assist the passage of Trade Promotion Authority
clarifying a way forward, provided President Barack Obama and the majority Republicans can overcome

the Japanese Government wishes to continue

to protect so-called "sensitive" agricultural products. The Diet
election may have strengthened the hand of Prime Minister Abe, but
he still faces opposition from within his own party -- in that respect Abe and
Obama are in the same position. Third, there are substantive issues which
negotiators have not been able to resolve. Much has been agreed
but this does not apply to market access, largely because of the
stand-off between the US and Japan, or to other issues -- intellectual
property, investment, state-owned enterprises and environment -on which other participants, including New Zealand, are unlikely to
want to conclude until the market access issue is settled. The
conventional thinking is that if Trade Promotion Authority is secured,
it will strengthen the hand of the US in seeking a conclusion to TPP.
differences on other issues. Second,

Japan could then be convinced to show greater flexibility in agriculture in anticipation of an agreement,

This scenario is not impossible, but

political will, especially in the US Congress, is hard to predict. TPP
has a growing number of detractors and business is becoming weary
of the time that has been taken. Towards the middle of this year the
early jockeying for next year's US Presidential election will get under
way. The political environment could well change once again for TPP
and negotiators may need to look to other avenues to achieve its
much-needed objectives.
which would boost its productivity in other areas.

PC Not Key
PC is irrelevant to TPAit boils down to election calculus
Guida, 12/30 (Victoria, 12/13/14, Politico Trade Reporter, "The GOP's
divisive trade play", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html]
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.

AT Trade
Trade is irrelevant for war
Barbieri, 13 [Katherine, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South
Carolina, Ph.D. in Political Science from Binghamton University, Economic Interdependence: A Path to
Peace or Source of Interstate Conflict? Chapter 10 in Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to
Scientific Research]

How does interdependence affect war , the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives the
empirical results . The rarity of wars makes any analysis of their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the
occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs, the log-likelihood ratio tests for each model suggest that the inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the
control variables improves our understanding of the factors affecting the occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model. However, the individual
interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant. Again,
we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with unequal power are more pacific than those with highly equal power.
Surprisingly, no evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states. The

evidence from the pre-WWII period provides support for those

arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on affecting
leaders decisions to engage in war, but many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results
should be interpreted with caution, since the sample does not contain a sufficient number wars to allow us to capture great variations across different types of
relationships. Many observations of war are excluded from the sample by virtue of not having the corresponding explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an
extremely strong influence on conflictas does contiguityto find significant results.

7. Conclusions

This study provides little

empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a

path to interstate peace. Even after controlling for the influence of
contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities, the
evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter
conflict . Instead, extensive economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads engage in
militarized dispute; however, it

appears to have little influence on the incidence of war .

The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate
linkages. That is, extensive economic linkages, be they symmetrical or asymmetrical, appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.

No impact to tradethey mix up correlation and causation

Keshk, 10 [Omar, senior lecturer in the Political Science Department at, and PhD in Political
Science from, Ohio State University; Rafael Reuveny, prof of international political economy and ecological
economics at and PhD from Indiana University; and Brian M. Pollins, emeritus Associate Prof of Political
Science at Ohio State; Trade and Conflict: Proximity, Country Size, and Measures, Conflict Management
and Peace Science 2010 27: 3, SAGE journals]
In all,

any signal that trade brings peace remains weak and

inconsistent regardless of the

,

conflict reduces trade

, in contrast

way proximity is

model

ed in the conflict equation.

The signal that

, is strong and consistent

. Thus,

international

politics are clearly affecting dyadic trade, while it is far less obvious
whether trade
is conflict dampening
systematically affects dyadic politics, and if it does, whether that effect

or conflict amplifying. This is

what we have termed in KPR (2004) The Primacy of Politics. 7. Conclusion This study revisited the simultaneous equations model we presented in KPR (2004) and subjected it to four important challenges. Two
of these challenges concerned The specification of the conflict equation in our model regarding the role of inter- capital distance and the sizes of both sides in a dyad; one questioned the bilateral trade data
assumptions used in the treatment of zero and missing values, and one challenge suggested a focus on fatal MIDs as an alternative indicator to the widely used all-MID measure The theoretical and empirical
analyses used to explore proposed alternatives to our original work were instructive and the empirical results were informative, but there are certainly other legitimate issues that the trade and conflict research
community may continue to ponder. For example, researchers may continue to work on questions of missing bilateral trade data, attempt to move beyond the near- exclusive use of the MIDs data as we
contemplate the meaning of military conflict, and use, and extend the scope of, the Harvey Starr GIS-based border data as one way to treat contiguity with more sophistication than the typical binary variable.
The single greatest lesson of this study is that future work studying the effect of international trade on international military conflict needs to employ a simultaneous specification of the relationship between the two
forces.

The results we obtained

under

all

the 36 SEM alternatives we estimated

yielded an important,

measurable effect of conflict on trade

any study of
the effect of trade on conflict that ignores this reverse fact is
practically guaranteed to produce estimates that contain
. Henceforth, we would say with high confidence that

simultaneity bias. Such studies will claim that trade brings peace,
when we now know that in a much broader range of circumstances,

it is peace that brings trade .

Our message to those who would use conflict as one factor in a single-equation model of trade is only slightly less

cautionary. They too face dangers in ignoring the other side of the coin. In one half of the 36 permutations we explored, the likelihood of dyadic military conflict was influenced by trade flows. In most tests where
this effect surfaced, it was positive, that is, trade made conflict more likely. But the direction of this effect is of no consequence for the larger lesson: trade modelers ignore the simultaneity between international

commerce and political enmity at their peril. They too run no small risk of finding themselves deceived by simultaneity bias. Our empirical findings show clearly that international politics pushes commerce in a
much broader range of circumstances than the reverse. In fact, we could find no combination of model choices, indicators, or data assumptions that failed to yield the result that dyadic conflict reduces dyadic trade.

Liberal claims regarding the effect of dyadic trade on dyadic conflict

simply were not robust in our findings
. They survived in only 8 of the 36 tests we ran, and failed to hold up when certain data

assumptions were altered, and were seriously vulnerable to indicator choices regarding inter-capital distance, conflict, and national size.

Keystone

Topshelf

1NC
Keystone will pass but is just short of enough votes to be
veto-proof; push from the executive branch is key to
prevent passage
Walsh, 2/3 [Deirdre, 2/3/15, Senior Congressional Producer for CNN,
Setting up first veto, House to vote on Keystone bill next week,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/politics/keystone-pipeline-house-vote/]
Washington (CNN)Setting up the first presidential veto, the House of
Representatives will vote next week on the Senate-passed bill to approve the
Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada to the Gulf of
Mexico. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, told reporters
Tuesday that the measure would pass and would be sent to the President's
desk. The House already passed a similar version of the legislation last
month, but rather than reconciling the minor differences on the two bills in a
conference committee, House Republican leaders decided to go the quickest
route and take up the Senate bill. After taking control of both chambers of
Congress this year both House and Senate GOP leaders made the fight over
Keystone their first legislative priority. Last week nine Senate Democrats
joined Republicans to back the legislation, but proponents of the pipeline fell
short of securing enough votes to override a veto. President Barack Obama
has said the decision on whether or not to move forward with the pipeline
should reside with the executive branch and vowed he would not sign any
legislation to approve Keystone.

<<Insert Link Here>>

Keystone causes rampant warming
Goldenberg, 2/3 [Suzanne, 2/3/15, US environmental correspondent to the Guardian in
Washington D.C., Keystone Pipeline: Obama Given Boost From EPA Report Revising Climate Impact,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/03/keystone-xl-pipeline-climate-impact-oil-prices]

Falling oil prices have changed the economic viability of the Keystone XL
pipeline and that means the project would result in much higher carbon
pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Tuesday . The finding
gives Barack Obama new grounds on which to reject the pipeline, only days after the Senate voted to force approval of the project and as the
House Republican leadership moved to a final vote that could send a pipeline bill toward the presidents desk as soon as next week. In a

the EPA said the recent drop in oil prices meant that
Keystone would indeed promote further expansion of the Alberta tar
sands, unleashing more greenhouse gas emissions and worsening climate
change. Until ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
letter to the State Department,

associated with the production of oil sands are more successful and
widespread development of oil sands crude represents a significant
increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the EPAs assistant
administrator, Cynthia Giles, wrote in a letter posted on the agencys
website. The agency said building the pipeline could increase
emissions by as much as 27.4m metric tonnes a year almost as
much as building eight new coal-fired power plants . Campaigners said the finding

gave Obama all the information he needed to reject the pipeline. Obama had earlier said he would take climate change into account when
rendering his final decision on the project. As of today the president has all the nails that he needs to close the lid on this particular
boondoggle of a coffin, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, which led environmental opposition to the pipeline, told a conference call with
reporters. The president has final authority over the pipeline much to the frustration of TransCanada, the pipeline company, which has been
trying to build the project for more than six years. TransCanada reiterated that production in the Alberta tar sands was expanding anyway,
suggesting that Keystone would have no effect on climate change. The oil that Keystone XL will deliver is getting to market today that is a
fact, Shawn Howard, a spokesman for the company, wrote in an email. The State Department had earlier concluded that Keystone would
have little impact on developing the tar sands and that the oil would be extracted anyway. However, one year later, the assumptions in the
State Department review no longer held, the EPA said. Falling oil prices made it less likely producers would pay the high costs of shipping by
rail, the agency found. Given the recent variability in oil prices, it is important to revisit these conclusions, the EPA said. With oil trading
below $50 a barrel, the agency went on:

Construction of the pipeline is projected to

change the economics of oil sands development and result in

increased oil sands production, and the accompanying greenhouse
gas emissions, over what would otherwise occur . The EPA also raised questions about
the State Departments review of alternative routes to the Keystone XL. The pipeline crosses three states, and has encountered legal
opposition from landowners in Nebraska. The latest finding from the EPA offers Obama more solid grounds on which to reject Keystone.
Republicans in Congress have also jumped on the pipeline, making it one of their top legislative priorities and voting to take the decision over
the pipeline out of Obamas hands. On Tuesday, House majority leader Kevin McCarthy said he would move to bring the Senate bill up for
debate next week, setting up the long-awaited showdown with the presidents veto pen. The White House said Obama would veto any law
seeking to force approval of the project. Obama has said that climate change will factor into that decision. Campaigners said the EPA finding
left Obama will little option but to turn it down. The Environmental Protection Agency has just affirmed what has been clear all along: the
Keystone XL tar sands pipeline fails the presidents climate test, said Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club.

These

comments re-confirm that this dirty and dangerous project would

significantly increase carbon pollution. Thats the standard the
president has set for rejecting Keystone XL, so we fully expect him to do just
that.

Extinction
Deibel 2007 (Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American

Statecraft," Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)

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, andworldwide, 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;

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
Earths

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

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
about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase,

are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease,

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
mass die offs of plants

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;

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
severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But

degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then
pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can
conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the 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

up;

just going to burn everything

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

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.
planet.

2NC OV
Keystone will pass but is still five votes short of being
veto-proof. Only Obamas pressure and threat of a veto is
keeping the remaining democrats in line. The plan
changes that and allows a veto-proof majority. Keystone
causes rampant increases in emissions which ensures
runaway warming. That causes extinction.
Outweighs and turns the case: the Deibel evidence is on
fire in this debate. Warming is the single most important
risk of extinction. A preponderance of evidence and
scientific consensus indicates that warming is real and
accelerating. Deibel then goes on to do the impact calc
for me. The impact to warming is equivalent to that of
nuclear winter, with the exception that the impact of
nuclear winter is less supported than warming. Warming
is also a threat to security and prosperity. That means
impacts like conflict and resource wars will only be
exacerbated by warming.

2NC UQ Wall
Obama is staving of Keystone but Republicans are only a
few votes short
Wood, 2/4 [James, 2/4/15, political reporter for Calgary Herald, As Prentice lobbies for Keystone
pipeline, Sen. McCain says don't expect a quick fix, http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/as-prenticelobbies-for-keystone-pipeline-sen-mccain-says-dont-expect-a-quick-fix]

Premier Jim Prentice is optimistic the fiery debate around the long-delayed
Keystone XL oil pipeline is finally coming to a head, but one prominent U.S.
senator says Canadians shouldnt be holding their breath just yet. Prentice,
who is in Washington this week as part of efforts to push forward
TransCanada Corp.s $8-billion pipeline, said Monday his sense is that the
Keystone saga is in its closing chapter. But Arizona Sen. John McCain said
Tuesday he did not expect a quick resolution on Keystone, which has become
the subject of a ferocious political battle that has pitted the Democratic White
House against the Republican-majority U.S. Congress. No, I dont, the 2008
Republican presidential nominee told the Herald. I hope theyre right but
were going to see a (presidential) veto I dont think right now we have 67
votes to override his veto. The U.S. Senate voted 62 to 36 last week to
approve Keystone a pipeline aimed at linking Albertas oilsands to Gulf
Coast refineries but President Barack Obama has pledged to kill the bill. As
for attaching pipeline approval to another piece of legislation , as Prentice said
earlier this week might occur, McCain replied: Oh, well keep trying.
Prentice said Tuesday he found solid support for Keystone as he spent much
of his day meeting with American Congressional leaders, but the oil pipeline
received some bad news for its immediate prospects.

Keystone is 5 votes short but any controversy could alter

the balance
Dykstra, 1/29 [Matt, 1/29/15, political correspondent for the Sun News, KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
DEBATE REACHES 'CLOSING CHAPTER': PRENTICE
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2015/02/20150202-201550.html]

EDMONTON - Alberta Premier Jim Prentice says there's "a sense that we're in
the closing chapter" of the Keystone XL pipeline debate in Washington, D.C.,
where he met with representatives from U.S. President Barack Obama's office
Monday. Prentice's four-day visit to Washington comes as the Republican-led
Congress heads towards a showdown with Obama over the controversial
pipeline. Last week, the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan bill approving
TransCanada's $8 billion pipeline project, but fell five votes short of the
number needed to override a presidential veto. Prentice said he still expects
Obama to veto any Keystone XL bill that comes forward as the U.S. State
Department continues a national interest review of the controversial pipeline.
"I'm not here to insert myself in the political dynamic that's taking place
between the president and the U.S. Congress. I'm just here to make sure that
the facts are straight," said Prentice in a news conference Monday. "I would
say, based on the sense that I've had talking to people and the comments
that were made by the Secretary of State (John) Kerry in Boston yesterday,
there is a sense that we're in the closing chapter of this whole discussion

around the Keystone pipeline, but I cannot tell you whether that translates
into days or weeks."

Republicans are only 5 votes shy of having a veto-proof

majority
Yedlin, 1/31 [Deborah, 1/31/15, business columnist with the Calgary Herald, Yedlin: Keystone XL
offers Obama opportunity to ensure energy security, http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/yedlinkeystones-long-troubled-road-continues]

The standoff between President Barack Obama and the U.S. Senate moved a
step closer to an all-out showdown this week as legislation to approve the
Keystone XL pipeline project passed by a vote of 62 to 36, five votes shy of
the magic number needed to override a presidential veto. Thursdays vote
followed the passage of similar legislation in the House earlier this month and
a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of that states
governor to approve the pipelines routing. For those keeping track, its the
10th time in seven years the House has backed Keystone XL. These recent
developments point to Obama being on increasingly shaky ground in terms of
credible reasons for not approving the project .

Keystone Warming
Keystone will exacerbate global warming
Neuhauser, 2/3 [Alan, 2/3/15, energy, environment, and STEM reporter for US News, EPA:
Keystone XL Will Impact Global Warming, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/03/epa-keystonexl-pipeline-will-impact-global-warming]

With oil prices hitting a five-year low, building the Keystone XL pipeline
extension could enable oil companies to expand development of Canadas tar
sands, increasing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate
change, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a letter to the State
Department this week. Construction of the pipeline is projected to change
the economics of oil sands development and result in increased oil sands
production, and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, over what
would otherwise occur, the EPA said. President Barack Obama has said he
would only approve the 1,179-mile pipeline if it did not significantly
exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The $5.4 billion project requires
his approval because it crosses an international boundary. The State
Department is conducting a review to determine whether the pipeline is in
the country's national interest. In a January 2014 environmental impact
statement, the State Department concluded that Keystone XL would not
affect carbon emissions. Oil companies, it said, would develop the tar sands
regardless of whether the pipeline is built. But, the EPA argued in its letter
Monday, given the recent variability in oil prices, it is important to revisit
these conclusions. From January to June of last year, prices of benchmark
West Texas Intermediate and Brent crude oil vacillated between about $90
and $110 per barrel. Then they fell off a cliff, dropping to about $50 per barrel
as the U.S. energy boom injected huge amounts of oil into a market already
crippled by weak demand from a sluggish global economy. Developing the tar
sands, meanwhile, is a costly endeavor: Turning a profit on a new well
requires a market price of $86 to $106 per barrel, according to a July report
by the Canadian Energy Research Institute. Hence, pipeline opponents argue,
tar sands companies simply cannot afford anymore to ship crude by rail or
truck, which is more expensive than sending it by pipeline. To get anywhere
close to making a profit on new tar sands wells , critics add, companies need
Keystone XL. And that means approving the pipeline would result in far more
greenhouse gases escaping into the atmosphere , thereby causing the project
to flunk Obamas so-called climate test.

Keystone Irrelevant
No need for Keystonemoots all their offense
Clark et al, 2/4 [2/4/15, Aaron Clark, Lynn Doan, and Dan Murtaugh, correspondents for
Bloomberg, No Keystone, no problem for Canadian oil seeking ports: Energy,
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/no_keystone_no_problem_for_can.html]

While the debate intensifies over whether TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL

pipeline should be approved, traders are quietly setting up alternative routes
to ship Canadian oil from U.S. ports. At least five rail-to-marine projects have
been proposed in the state of Washington that would allow the export or
domestic shipment of more than 500,000 barrels a day of oil. A terminal in
Oregon is operational already and is being upgraded to handle vessels that
carry more than 300,000 barrels of crude. The proposed depots haven't
received the national attention of Keystone XL because they are in obscure
places like Grays Harbor County, Washington, perhaps best known as the
birth place of the late Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain. While U.S. demand for
imported light oil has slowed amid the shale boom -- leaving Canada
desperate to reach global markets -- the terminals might also be used to ship
domestic oil overseas if a ban on U.S. exports is lifted. "If the economics work
out, Washington state in particular could become a depot for large scale
Canadian crude exports," said Eric de Place, a policy director at Sightline
Institute, a Seattle-based non-profit. "If the U.S. export ban gets lifted, then
you could see the Northwest become a major throughput route for oil exports
to South Korea, Japan and northeast China."

**Aff Answers**

Uniqueness
No veto proof majority but itll pass as a rider on the TI
bill
The Hill, 1/21 [Ben Kamisar, 1/21/15, "Republican hints at Keystone

backup plan", TheHill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230253republican-hints-at-keystone-backup-plan]

Republicans have a backup plan for approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline if
President Obama vetoes the bill now moving through the Senate, a
top House Republican suggested Wednesday. House Rules Committee Chairman
Pete Sessions (R-Texas) struck a positive tone about the pipeline fight in a radio interview, suggesting the
GOP could have other ways to secure a veto-proof majority for the
pipeline. "He may veto this thing and we may not have the votes to
overturn it, but he is going to see it on a transportation
infrastructure bill and we're going to give it to him with 400 votes,"
Sessions said on the Dallas-Fort Worth-area Mark Davis Radio Show. " We are going to get
Keystone pipeline because, Mark, it represents so many attributes that
we've been fighting about and that Americans need." Senators are working
through a series of amendments to a Keystone bill that passed the House earlier this month, with work
expected to stretch on for weeks under Majority Leader Mitch McConnells (R-Ky.) open amendment
process. While the Keystone bill is expected to pass, the White House has made clear that Obama will veto
it, arguing the State Departments review of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline should be allowed to run its

Republicans appear short of the two-thirds majority they would

need in the House and Senate to override a veto, but have other
tools for trying to revive the fight in the months ahead. If they could
get a Keystone provision into a larger transportation bill that passes
Congress, it would create a tough choice for Obama, who has repeatedly stressed the need for
course.

spending on infrastructure.

No chance of a veto proof majoritydivided GOP, Obama

popularity, rallying democrats, and too many amendments
Pianin and Garver, 1/29 [1/29/15, Eric and Rob, Washington Editor and D.C. Bureau
Chief Eric Pianin is a veteran journalist who has covered the federal government, congressional budget and
tax issues, and national politics. He spent over 25 years at The Washington Post, "Obamas Veto Pen
Mightier Than GOP Swords", Fiscal Times, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/29/Obamas-Veto-PenMightier-GOP-Swords]

There was a lot of brave talk among Senate Democrats as well as

Republicans of slapping new economic sanctions on Iran even before the
Obama administration completed its latest round of negotiations on restraining Tehrans nuclear program. But that
was before President Obama renewed his threat to veto the
legislation during his State of the Union address last week. There are no guarantees
negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran, Obama said in the speech. But
new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails alienating
America from its allies and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. On Tuesday, Sen. Robert

Menendez

(NJ),

the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, and nine other influential Democrats backed down

telling

Obama they would hold off until after a late-March deadline for the U.S. and Iran to complete work on the agreement.
Congressional leaders like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Bob Corker of Tennessee may eventually come back

Obama has scored a

tactical victory that buys State Department negotiators time.
Obamas veto strategy has been paying other dividends in shaping
the legislative agenda in the early going of the 114th Congress, much to the chagrin of many
with tough sanctions legislation if Obamas negotiating team falls short. But for now,

Emboldened by his rising approval rating and divisions

within the GOP, the president who vetoed only two minor bills up
until now is threatening to veto at least five others. House Republicans
conservatives.

threatened to use the Dept. of Homeland Security annual spending bill to block implementation of Obamas executive
order protecting nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation. They still may move ahead on that plan to placate
angry conservatives and Tea Party members. But after Obamas veto threat, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other GOP
members are exploring another way to take the president to court again to challenge the constitutionality of his executive

prospects for passage of legislation to bypass Obama and

force the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline project are fading
fast: The House-passed legislation has been mired in a two-week debate on the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader
action. And

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may eventually produce a bill that could overcome a presidential veto in the Senate, some

the legislation has been loaded with so many

amendments to placate Republican and Democratic senators that
Boehner may have trouble achieving final passage of the bill on the
House floor much less amassing the 290 votes hed need to
override a veto. Aides to Republican lawmakers take strong exception to any suggestion Obama is having his
observers say. But

way with his veto threat. We are considering litigation in addition to legislative options like the DHS bill not in place of
them, said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner. I also dont agree with your assessment on the Keystone pipeline or
Iran. Don Stewart, a McConnell spokesman, noted, We had the same number of supporters/co-sponsors on Keystone
before the veto threat as after. Menendez has flipped on Iran. And the battle lines on immigration were drawn long ago.
Yet others see GOP reaction to Obamas veto threats quite differently. The

president is doing
exactly what youd expect him to do, said Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage
Action, an influential conservative lobbying group associated with the Heritage Foundation. "Hes waiting for Republicans
to step up and challenge him on something. But if you look at the past few years, you are hard pressed to find a time
when the Republican Party made a hard challenge to what the president is doing. Holler added, There

is a
mystique around the presidency ... that if he draws a line in the sand
there is no way of overcoming it. In many ways, Congress has played into
this notion that the executive branch is the superior branch, not a coequal
branch. If Senate Republicans were to draw a line in the sand right now, the president would laugh at
them, because they havent shown a willingness to defend their turf . Moreover,
with many insiders warning of the dangers of the House GOP tampering with DHSs operating budget amid global terrorist
threats, All

the signs point to them not being willing to take on this

fight right now, Holler said. John Zogby, a prominent pollster and political analyst, said the
presidents rising approval rating approaching 50 percent right
now has given him added leverage. I cant say it any better than a millennial pop singer
named Meghan Trainor, said Zogby. Its all about the base. The presidents numbers are the
only ones going up and its because he is getting increased support
from liberals who see he is acting decisively and liberated by not
having to run again. William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, said,
Democrats, even dissenting Democrats, are less eager to confront
the president of their own party than the Republicans are . Because any
meaningful confrontation between Congress and the president has to involve a veto override, if Democrats who may be

then the president can block most

things he doesnt want from happening.
dissenting are unwilling to join the opposition at this point,

Keystone Good
Keystone is goodenvironment, energy security, jobs,
and value to life. And, theres plenty of other pipes, if
theres an impact its inevitable
NPR, 2/4 [2/4/15, transcript of an interview between David Greene, host of NPR, and Alberta
Premier Jim Prentice, Keystone XL Pipeline Benefits U.S. And Canada, Alberta Premier Says,
http://www.npr.org/2015/02/04/383724544/keystone-xl-pipeline-benefits-u-s-and-canada-alberta-premiersays]

PRENTICE: On both sides of the border, we have benefited from an integrated

energy system that is the biggest and the most successful in the world . So
when we talk about this pipeline, it's not just a single pipeline. It is part of an
infrastructure that we've built over the last 50 years. That's given us the
highest standard of living in the world. And so we shouldn't lose sight of the
fact that what we're building together as North Americans under the Free
Trade Agreement is an integrated energy system. And this is one pipeline.
There are many others that perform a similar role. The purpose of this
pipeline is not to carry oil to ports to be exported. It actually carries Canadian
oil to American refineries that have been purpose-built to process the stuff,
which creates jobs in the United States. So it's not just about the jobs of
construction. I mean, this is part of a permanent industrial infrastructure that
creates all kinds of jobs in the United States - in refining, in ports and so on.
GREENE: But this project specifically - I mean, we're talking about in terms of
permanent jobs past construction - maybe just a few dozen. And you
mentioned there are other pipelines that are doing sort of a similar thing. One
of them is known as the Alberta Clipper, which was approved with very little
fanfare and...
PRENTICE: Sure. I was at the opening of a pipeline in Freeport, Texas, 10 days
ago - the Flanagan South Seaway pipeline which basically does the same
thing that the Keystone pipeline does.
GREENE: So why did this one become such a subject of political mudslinging?
PRENTICE: Well, I think it's become a symbol, I suppose, of the exercise of
authority by the president versus the Congress here in the United States.
That's beyond my jurisdiction. But at the end of the day, I simply make the
point that this is an important part of what we are doing together as North
Americans. Our province - province of Alberta - provides 25 percent of the oil
imports to the United States of America. We are the largest supplier of oil to
the United States. That gives us energy security as a continent , gives us
prosperity on both sides of the border. And it's something that's worth
continuing to pursue. And it gives us not only geopolitical advantages
worldwide, but it gives us the possibility to find an environmental advantage
as North Americans that nobody else in the world has.

Political Capital

Yes PC
Obama has PCapproval ratings, decisive actions, and
lame duck status
Pianin and Garver, 1/29 [Eric and Rob, 1/29/15, Washington Editor and

D.C. Bureau Chief Eric Pianin is a veteran journalist who has covered the
federal government, congressional budget and tax issues, and national
politics. He spent over 25 years at The Washington Post., "Obamas Veto Pen
Mightier Than GOP Swords", Fiscal Times,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/29/Obamas-Veto-Pen-Mightier-GOPSwords]
John Zogby, a prominent pollster and political analyst, said the presidents rising approval
rating approaching 50 percent right now has given him added
leverage. I cant say it any better than a millennial pop singer named Meghan Trainor, said Zogby. Its all
about the base. The presidents numbers are the only ones going up
and its because he is getting increased support from liberals who
see he is acting decisively and liberated by not having to run again .
William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, said, Democrats, even dissenting
Democrats, are less eager to confront the president of their own
party than the Republicans are.

Obama still has PC --- better positioned at this stage than

previous presidents
Rossinow, 14 [Doug, 10/15/14, professor of history at Metropolitan State
University, Perhaps the verdict on Obama is not yet in,
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/279358682.html]
Perceptions notwithstanding, he may be better positioned than
others were at this stage in their presidencies. More than one-fourth
of Barack Obamas presidency is yet to come. But the verdicts on his regime already
tumble forth. While some give him high marks, others lament his disappointed ambitions, which track his
drooping job-approval ratings. Obamas supposed lack of zest for retail politicking and his isolation from
the allies he needs in Washington in short, his dismal introversion figure large in these critiques. So
does Obamas alleged failure to grasp greatness through the force of some elusive quality called historic
character. Yet much of what we hear is untrue . Obamas tattered approval ratings are
due to the intensified partisanship of our era. His forthcoming (likely) political setback in Congress will be

His presidency in some ways is in better

shape than those of his predecessors at similar points in their
regimes. His major failing is not a lack of gregariousness or a deficit of character. Consider how
previous two-term presidents were doing at similar points in their
tenures. In 2006, George W. Bushs popularity was cratering, as discontent over the Iraq war crested.
consistent with historic tendencies.

In 1998, Bill Clinton was nearing impeachment by the U.S. House. In October 1986, Ronald Reagans
presidency started to unravel, as a downed plane in Nicaragua sparked the Iran-contra revelations that
could have led to Reagans impeachment. With the exception of Clinton whose congressional pursuers
repulsed much of the public these and other two-termers saw the opposition realize major gains in the
elections six years into their presidencies. In short,

these other guys were in some

serious trouble. Bush, Clinton and Reagan, each in a different way, were gravely compromised by
either scandal or policy disaster. Obama has committed no comparable misdeed (which is not the same as
saying he has made no serious errors). The only reason the Republican-controlled House has not started
impeachment proceedings is probably that there is nothing on which the GOP can touch him. Obamas low
approval ratings are due to historically unmatched hostility from the opposition. This far into their own
presidencies, Bush enjoyed job approval from about 15 percent of Democrats and Reagan had it from

around 25 percent of Democrats. Clinton despite his looming impeachment had it from 25 percent of
Republicans! But Obama has the support of 10 percent or less of Republicans. Whether you think this
results from Obamas own partisanship depends on how you define partisanship. His policies have been
rather moderate. His adoption of Mitt Romneys Massachusetts health care plan as his national model and
his embrace of drone strikes in numerous countries, as well as the escalating war against the Islamic State
in Iraq and the Levant, are prime cases in point. On the other hand, Obama has not made the repudiation
of his own partys core constituencies a pillar of his presidency, as did his Democratic predecessor, Clinton.
Recall Clintons repeal of Aid to Families With Dependent Children and his rhetorical attacks on labor unions
during the fight over NAFTA. Clinton gained Republican support with such moves. Obama has refrained
from throwing vulnerable segments of his partys base under the bus for political gain. Obama does have
character traits that have hampered his leadership. (His lack of sociability seems irrelevant; few recent
presidents have mingled with the D.C. social set.) Obama has shown an unwavering faith in the
(supposedly) meritocratic elite of Washington and Wall Street; he has failed to convert the countrys
disgust with these powerful few into political capital. In short, Obama lacks the instinct of the demagogue.
His hard-earned self-restraint, as a black man in America, no doubt plays a role in his temperamental
coldness toward crass political exploitation. If he had wanted to make more of his historic moment, he
might have needed a less-cool approach. Nonetheless, as Obama nears the three-quarters mark of his

while he may soon be saddled with a GOP Senate and

House both, his caution has kept him from disabling himself
presidency, and

politically with self-inflicted wounds . He may be freer to pursue his

vision than many previous presidents have been during their
seventh and eighth years.

Dems havent abandoned him- hes got capital left

Waldman, 14 [Paul, 10/29/14, Washington Post, The Democrats running
from Obama story is being way overplayed,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/29/thedemocrats-running-from-obama-story-is-being-way-overplayed/]
One of the primary themes in the coverage of the midterm elections
is the way that Democrats are running away from President Obama .
They dont want to be seen with him! They wont say whether they voted for him! And this has reportedly

This is all being taken

as evidence of a deep failure of Obamas presidency. But in order to
believe that, you need both a short memory and a willingness to
ignore the basic geographical dynamics of American politics. As a matter
become a source of friction between Democrats and the White House.

of political strategy, Im not going to defend the candidates who are distancing themselves from Obama.
The one who got the most attention was Alison Lundergan Grimes, who got infinitely more bad press for
refusing to say whether she had voted for him in 2008 and 2012 than she would have if she had just said,
Sure I did, and let me tell you why Im a Democrat Senate candidates have given up opportunities to
tout policies that have support among voters, and running away from your partys leader not only

But all
this isnt happening this year because theres something unusually

demoralizes your own base (particularly African-Americans), it just makes you look like a wimp.

toxic about Barack Obama. Yes, his approval ratings are in the 40s,
and if they were ten points higher a candidate here or there might
feel a little less uneasy about campaigning with him . What this is
really about is simple geography. Whats distinct about this year is that there are so

many close races not just in purple states, but in states that are deeply red. Should we be surprised that
a candidate like Grimes doesnt want to be associated with Obama? Shes running in Kentucky. A state
Obama lost in 2012 by 23 points. Mark Pryor in Arkansas isnt asking

Obama has not bottomed out --- no party revolt yet

Sink, 14 [Justin, 9/16/14, citing Julian Zelizer- Princeton University political
historian Liberal base sours on Obama,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218973-liberal-base-sours-onobama]

Political experts say that, although Obamas dwindling approval

ratings are restricting his power, hes not yet at risk of a wholesale
intraparty revolt like the one experienced by President George W. Bush.
Democrats are still relatively happy with the presidents policies,
even if they grow disenchanted with him as an individual, Zelizer said. Obama governs
through pragmatism and, while the crisis-by-crisis approach causes
some problems, its harder to have a sharp turn away from it like
Republicans with the Iraq War, he said.