Anda di halaman 1dari 127

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/231130-
iran-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 (D-
Va.) 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 co-
sponsors, 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-bid-
has-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 uranium-
enrichment 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

such circumstances, 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,

more importantly, the survivability of the country itself, despite its vastly larger and more advanced arsenal. Thus, Israeli leaders

might feel the need to act preventatively to eliminate the Iranian arsenal before it can be used against them, just as
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-banking-
committee-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-congress-
idUSKBN0L220N20150129]
(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 co-
author, 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-united-
states-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 negotiations with Iran. Iranian officials have also warned against new
The chairman of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy
sanctions.
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.
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-bid-
has-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-sanctions-
bill-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 for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistanin
significance and complexity; of rupturing relations 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-sanctions-
against-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
not to suggest that Obama has taken control over the process of lifting sanctions. That
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.

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
Menendez (NJ), the ranking Democrat on the
program again. On Tuesday, Sen. Robert
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 with tough sanctions legislation if Obamas negotiating team falls short. But for
now, 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 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 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 dissenting are unwilling to join the opposition at this point, then
the president can block most things he doesnt want from happening.
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/Middle-
East/Nuclear-deal-will-not-be-reached-due-to-Irans-intransigence-senior-
diplomatic-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-negotiations-
a-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-sanctions-
nuclear-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


that McConnell could call up at any time.

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,
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 veto-
proof 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 co-
sponsor 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-deal-
prospects-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 nuclear agreement one of his foreign policy priorities.
the pending agreement would destroy the whole sanctions
Netanyahu believes
framework and allow Iran to continue its illicit nuclear program, and his strategy is
try to use the 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 talks. He said hed veto such a measure to give diplomacy a
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California on Monday
chance to succeed.
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 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 questioned whether he will permit Iranian concessions sufficient for a
The nuclear capabilities that Iran would be allowed to retain
deal. Israels Objections
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. Last week, the head of Israels
Mossad intelligence service, Tamir Pardo, highlighted Israels objections to the bad deal when he met
The Mossad chief
with a group of visiting senators led by Republican John McCain of Arizona.
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
Netanyahu said
except to maintain a potential weapons capability. Netanyahus Objections
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 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/2015-01-
27/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 Kirk-
Menendez 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-settled-
long-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-gives-
Obama-political-capital-to-push-cybersecurity-agenda-video]
the cyberattack on Sony Pictures may ultimately
In gridlocked Washington, the aftereffects of
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
Obamas new
private information from citizens. The information-sharing bills stalled. Yet President
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
it may be
Central Command social media accounts by apparent Islamic State supporters. All told,
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 information-sharing bill has
never been easy, he acknowledged, but 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-cyberattacks-
2015-1]
if a company or
Preventing these attacks isnt easy, and theres no such thing as a silver bullet. But
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
The type of
groups are largely opposed to cyber information sharing, their concerns are misguided.
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
Cyber information sharing is so important for
not related to the cyber threat.
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 to help member banks stay ahead of hackers. The problem,
however, is that 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 provides limited liability protections so that companies dont have to worry about a class-
this
action lawsuit just because they shared anonymized technical data culled from active cyber attacks,
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 affected by
Cybersecurity is likely to be one of the
the same strand of malware, known as BlackEnergy.
greatest security challenges facing US government agencies and
businesses over the next decade. Using clues from one attack to prevent it from spreading to
other businesses is crucial to stopping the rampage .

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


This section discusses how
management. Readers are advised, however, that history is indeterminate. It might turn out that, in
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 dangerous
Infowar can also destroy or disrupt communication channels necessary
situation to develop.
for successful crisis management. One way it can do this 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 weapons distributed within
disrupted communications could prevent top
their command. Clogged, destroyed, or
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, 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
infowar on nuclear crisis management is that it may reduce the search for
disruptive effect of
available alternatives to the few and desperate. Policymakers searching for escapes from crisis
denouements 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
well-designed 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 crisis
organizations.21 In civilmilitary command and control systems
decision making, the first available alternative may quite literally be the 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
infowar
well have been the chosen alternative.22 Fourth and finally on the issue of crisis management,
can cause flawed images of each side's intentions and capabilities to be conveyed to
the other, with potentially disastrous results. Another 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 d ecision 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-push-
cybersecurity-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 information-
sharing 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
actors sharpen their cyber skills.
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
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-information-
sharing-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 information-
sharing 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 high-
profile 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-reintroduce-
major-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-top-
terror-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 cyberattack from another country a
major threat in a Pew Research Center survey released last month. Defense Department officials, for their
part, have warned about the increasing threat. FBI Director James Comey, Rand Beers, the then-acting secretary for the
voiced
Homeland Security Department, and Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, each
their concerns before Congress last year. And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike 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."
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-gil-
baram/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
operational satellites currently orbiting the earth, which have the potential to cause
significant 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
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
cybercrimes: They are low effort and high return. Therefore,
considerable damage. EASY PREY Although a space system is composed of three 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 reverse-
engineering 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-nsa-
surveillance-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 twenty-
first 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-fix-
corporate-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]
when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B
We have seen,
visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across
industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now
overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in
the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security,
certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant
set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland
Was there any discussion
Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands.
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.
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/science-
environment-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
We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but
In general, our government gets this.

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 other nation has done. Almost as

amazing is that these incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological expertise, 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 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 guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its

extraordinary long-term value. for planetary missions (like many things in life), timing is
Second,

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 mean to replace it in the next

budget, is likely to kill rather than delay any typical planetary project. 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)

There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. 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 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
Mars is
compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well.
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 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-that-
buy]

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-congress-
fight-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]
The major source of social friction,
7. World peace and preservation of human civilisation
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
is that, if the general public
world events today [37]. A particular danger of "resource wars"
can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as
resources become increasingly scarce . Many commentators have noted the similarity of the
language of US and UK government advocates of "war on terror" to the language of the novel "1984"
which describes a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are
reduced to slaves. 7.1. Expansion into near-Earth 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 near-Earth 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 . That is, 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 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 use of space resources. 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 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
All this equipment could
work should be part of the preceding unmanned [unstaffed] mission.
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 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
A one-way human mission to Mars would
available in duplicate in case of an emergency.
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 long-term survival of the first colonists is much more feasible than
it would be on the Moon.
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
disadvantages, 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 space, insulation, ease and speed of insulation and redundancy.
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.
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,
industrial areas( power generation, etc.) workshops, food and other production areas. 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 , however, this will require
resupply of nuclear fuel, launched from Earth, and has environmental and safety considerations
Solar (surface or orbital), wind and possible geothermal energy sources
associated.
appear to be reliable and viable systems of power supply, although each has
its drawbacks. Options for power storage must also be 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-powered) or other means, must also be
All significant materials required to support life and industry are
provided.
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.
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
greater.
because of nuclear war, pandemic, climate change, cosmic impact, or
resource depletion, we can never pass this way again . No 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
Our
planet, but only for a species as far removed from us in the future as the trilobites are in our past.
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 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
The experience
left their tropical home-of-origin and ventured into the temperate and polar zones.
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 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
species to survive, we must diffuse into the cosmos.
environment, and who can say for how long our window of opportunity will
remain open?

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 field. 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 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, SR-71s, Atlas, Titan, and Saturn

Compared to these
rockets, communication satellites, interplanetary spacecraft, and piloted voyages to the Moon.

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. Instead, 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 too, but with all of the existing investments in other, more polluting forms of energy
production, the research that would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed to stagnate. The Martian

colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion online , and in doing
so will massively benefit the 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

There are greater


in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show us the path away from oligarchy and stagnation.

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. 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

in a closed society Malthusianism has


of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate. Nevertheless,

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 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]
space competition is affected in unique
Unlike other environments of international activity,
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 from periodically
attempting to overcome these limitations, as seen in China's 2007 test. But 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 miss the point when they discount the possibility of unique
military restraint in space as a fallacy.10 Instead, 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 low-
Earth orbit) for other purposes. As few as a dozen explosionscapable 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 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/science-
environment-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-avoid-
government-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-nasa-
scientists-grapple-with-budget-cuts.html)//DLG
TopNASA 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
have that, the more were doing our job. 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
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.
Giventhe 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/mars-
one-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
outside of our solar system from cataclysmic star events and black holes. Both are
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.
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
trace component. Even if you compressed it, you still could not breathe it. The
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
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
the Martian soil. This last source may be a problem because
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
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
food plants must have strong sunlight. Hybrids may be developed to compensate. Even so,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
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
winds create sandstorms that can erode anything exposed outside, including the
shelters. 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
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
flexible solar panels to be rolled out onto the Martian surface to capture the wan sunlight. The
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
needed to hold enough energy for heating and other purposes such as oxygen generation throughout the
Even the most
Martian nights. The Mars One information does not include battery specifications.
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
making 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
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
high-
their solar arrays as they expand the colony if such expansion can be done at all. The
technology 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
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
cooking pots or childrens toys?
colonists would not have any access to modern medicine . They would have
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,
food, shelter, and building materials can be resolved, a very unlikely result, the colonists must
face extreme psychological pressures. A single small error by one colonist
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
ever experiencing them again in person.
colonists will be in a constant state of stress from a long
looks like Mars
list of sources. How can you stand this sort of stress? The answer typically lies in hope for the
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


Not only science fiction readers, but also quite a few
life to other planets in the Solar System, and in particular to Mars. 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
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
clear in the rest of this chapter. 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 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 capabilities. Consequently,
the U.S. military in particular have had a strong interest in
militaries in general and
the military uses of space forthe last half century. Early 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
While NASA goes to great
technologies that are often developed in space exploration missions.
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 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. This would be a dark future, a future we should avoid at all
costs. 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 attacks on enemy ground targets in a crisis. 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
by taking
automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However,
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 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
Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire
failures are inevitable.
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 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,
An accidental war sparked by a computer
biological, and/or chemical weapons.
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-abe9-
00144feab7de.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
resistance is unlikely to prove enough to stop
has resisted. Business groups believe that
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, 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-the-
new-congress-1419811308]

the presidency relied on the


Prof. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that
power to persuade. Its time for Mr. Obama to persuade on trade. He must
make use of the convening power of the executive to bolster his
advocacy. His administration must work closely with Congressto listen,
explain, address problems and cut deals. So why does trade matter? First, 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 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
such business services as software,
sectors and expand e-commerce. In recent years,
finance, architecture and engineering employed 25% of American workers,
more than 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
trade deals in the works could offer that family another $3,000 or more a year. Second,
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 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,
history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not
likely to be repeated, 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 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
newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised
sophisticated attack and
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 past in several respects. The
the trend toward greater diffusion of authority and
report asserts that, under most scenarios,
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 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 organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted.
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.
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-prove-
bipartisanship-is-possible]
despite all the calls for bipartisanship, there have been
Part of the problem is that
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-asia-
pacific-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 fast-track 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-fight-
obama-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
and environmental protection. He predicts that TPP will be the most progressive trade
agreement in history. Whether this will be enough to mollify his Democratic critics remains to be
seen. Mr. Froman also expresses confidence that he could conclude a draft TPP treaty with our trade
partners. The reason: Everyoneis 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 authority the 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
Everyone with
market would disappoint many U.S. lawmakers and weaken support for the agreement.
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/231082-
new-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 (D-Conn.) 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 fast-track 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-a-
lobbying/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-spoil-
obamas-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 deals with South
This time around, the mobilization has started early,
Korea, Colombia, and Panama.
with Democrats in both the House and Senate trying to blunt any momentum
from Obama's State of the Union call. "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 not "have to compete against people in Vietnam who
While Republicans are generally , as Ryan put
have a minimum wage of 56 cents an hour."
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.
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-democrats-
trade-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 conference. The opposition in both
chambers will be countered by an all-out 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 190 members in total voiced some level of opposition to the
A broad majority of the 188 Democrats in
legislation, as a starting point for fighting the bill.
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 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-prove-
bipartisanship-is-possible]
despite all the calls for bipartisanship, there have been
Part of the problem is that
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
Economically, there is no question that expanding trade
again in the year ahead.
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-abe9-
00144feab7de.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-makes-
the-case-to-both-parties-for-trade]
Obama urged both political parties on Tuesday night to give him the
President
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 high-standard 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 Republican-controlled 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]
the United States President and Congress have yet to agree on the over-
First,
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 differences on other issues.
Second, 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. Japan could then be convinced to show greater flexibility in
agriculture in anticipation of an agreement, which would boost its productivity in other areas. 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.
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. This study provides little empirical support for the
7. Conclusions

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]

any signal that trade brings peace remains weak and inconsistent
In all, ,

regardless of the model The signal that conflict reduces trade


way proximity is ed in the conflict equation. , in

, is strong and consistent international politics are clearly affecting


contrast . Thus,

dyadic trade, while it is far less obvious whether trade systematically affects dyadic politics, and if it does, whether that

is conflict dampening
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

The results we obtained all


needs to employ a simultaneous specification of the relationship between the two forces. under the 36 SEM alternatives we estimated

yielded an important, measurable effect of conflict on trade . Henceforth, we would say with high

any study of the effect of trade on conflict that ignores this reverse fact
confidence that

is practically guaranteed to produce estimates that contain 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

Liberal claims
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.

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
letter to the State Department,

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
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

Construction of the pipeline is projected to


below $50 a barrel, the agency went on:

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

These
Keystone XL tar sands pipeline fails the presidents climate test, said Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club.

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, and
worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have
been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists
have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with
1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than
150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from
Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is
slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They
call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000
years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward
400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately,
atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how
increase,
much and how serous the effects will be . As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we
are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease,
mass die offs of plantsand animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation
of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5
degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea
level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp
the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline
circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.
Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of
the most
warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But
frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive
feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both
caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated
with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no
one was then pouring ever-increasing 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 just going to burn everything
up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were
crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl
Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied
States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet.
Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at
least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically . Over the long
run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to
shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United
States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.
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-prentice-
lobbies-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/yedlin-
keystones-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-keystone-
xl-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/230253-
republican-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 course.
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 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-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
Menendez (NJ), the ranking Democrat on the
program again. On Tuesday, Sen. Robert
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 with tough sanctions legislation if Obamas negotiating team falls short. But for
Obama has scored a tactical victory that buys State Department
now,
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
Emboldened by his rising approval rating and divisions within the
conservatives.
GOP, the president who vetoed only two minor bills up until now is
threatening to veto at least five others. House Republicans 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
prospects
way to take the president to court again to challenge the constitutionality of his executive action. And
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
the legislation has been
could overcome a presidential veto in the Senate, some observers say. But
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 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 dissenting are unwilling to join the opposition at this point, then
the president can block most things he doesnt want from happening.
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-premier-
says]

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-GOP-
Swords]
the presidents rising approval rating
John Zogby, a prominent pollster and political analyst, said
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 consistent with historic tendencies.
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. 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
while he may soon be saddled with a GOP Senate and
mark of his presidency, and
House both, his caution has kept him from disabling himself 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/the-
democrats-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 become a source of
This is all being taken as evidence of a
friction between Democrats and the White House.
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 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 demoralizes your own base (particularly
But all this isnt happening this
African-Americans), it just makes you look like a wimp.
year because theres something unusually 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-on-
obama]
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.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai