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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/]
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.
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.
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."
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
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,
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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.
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.
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&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.
any signal that trade brings peace remains weak and inconsistent
In all, ,
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
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
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.
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
These
Keystone XL tar sands pipeline fails the presidents climate test, said Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club.
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.
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.
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."
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]
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]