Advantage CPs BEFFJR Lab

UM 2015

*Notes About File*

**= Indicates new counterplan and new 1nc
(Any frontline with **1nc indicates that this is the only CP
written for that specific internal linkspaces between modules
are also intentional)
All of these can be used for the various internal links for affs
that have been put out by the camppick and choose wisely,
some are more specific to affs than others
Contributors:
Byron Chin
Kristina Curtiss
Bhavish Dinakard (Meme/Patrick Kennedy)
The Real Kurt Shady
Ella Fisher
Jacob Lee
Emily Merz

Compiled by Ella Fisher

Cartels/Latin America Stability CPs

**Prosecute banks CP
The United States should prosecute bank employees who
launder money.
The counterplan is comparatively better than the plan
Morris 2013 (Evelyn Krache [Research Fellow, International Security Program,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs @ JFK School of Govt, Harvard];
Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels; Dec
3;www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/03/think_again_mexican_drug_cartels;
kdf)
Despite the ongoing arguments
about drug legalization and border security, the most effective way to combat the
scourge of the DTOs would be to interdict not drugs or people but money. As in any business,
money is the fuel that keeps the cartels running. Even if Sinaloa, to give only one example, were to
disappear tomorrow, other organizations would quickly rise to take its slice of the
lucrative pie. One of the most basic tenets of business is that highly profitable markets attract lots of new
"We Need to Hit Them Where It Hurts: the Wallet." Exactly.

entrants. This is true for legal and illegal enterprises alike. The staggering profits of illegal trade would be much less

shutting down the

cartels' financial operations will be a formidable task, given the help they have had
from multinational financial institutions, which have profited from the cartels' large-dollar deposits.
In 2010, Wachovia bank (which was acquired by Wells Fargo in 2008) admitted that it had
processed $378 billion of currency exchanges in Mexico -- an amount equal to about one-third
of the country's GDP -- to which it had failed to apply anti-laundering restrictions . In 2012,
British bank HSBC settled with the U.S. government for $1.9 billion to escape prosecution for, among other things,
laundering hundreds of millions of dollars for the Sinaloa cartel . U.S. law enforcement has
attractive if the DTOs could not launder, deposit, and ultimately spend their money. But

also implicated Bank of America and Western Union in DTO money laundering. Although illegal money transfers can
happen without banks' knowledge, the volume and widespread occurrence of these transactions indicate just how
easy it is for the cartels to clean their dirty money. Paying a fine to avoid prosecution is almost no punishment at all.
The fines Wachovia paid amounted to less than 2 percent of its 2009 profit. Even the record fine assessed on HSBC
amounted to only 12 percent of the bank's profits. Furthermore, banks can simply accrue funds to offset any
possible fines, either by increasing what they charge cartels or by setting aside some of the earnings from

Prosecuting bank employees

involved in money laundering, up through the highest levels of an institution, would
be a better tack. Pictures of a chief compliance officer as he entered a courtroom for sentencing would have a
far greater deterrent effect than any financial penalty. To that end, investigative techniques and legal
precedents for going after global criminal networks are increasingly robust, and the
political payoffs could be substantial. One of the more successful campaigns in the
war on terrorism has been the financial one; experience gained in tracking the funds
of al Qaeda could make it easier to similarly unravel Los Zetas' financing. Malfeasance in
laundering, even as they continue to do business with the DTOs.

the financial industry is nothing new, but public sensitivity to banks' wrongdoing is arguably higher than it has been
in decades. An enterprising prosecutor could make quite a reputation for herself by tracking DTO money through
the financial system. The cartels, along with the violence and corruption they perpetrate, are threats to both Mexico

The
way to make progress in combating the DTOs is to ignore issues like gun
control and illegal immigration and follow the money . Stanching the cartels'
profits will do more to end the bloodshed than any new fence or law.
and the United States. The problem is a complicated one and taps areas of profound policy disagreement.

--xt Solves drug violence

The CP controls the IL to solving drug violence
Murphy 2013 (Dylan; Money Laundering and The Drug Trade: The Role of the
Banks; May 13; www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-and-the-drug-trade-therole-of-the-banks/5334205; kdf)
Mexico is in the grip of a murderous drug war that has killed over 150,000 people since 2006. It is one of the most
violent countries on earth. This drug war is a product of

the transnational drug trade which is worth up to

$400 billion a year and accounts for about 8% of all international trade . The American government
maintains that there is no alternative but to vigorously prosecute their zero tolerance policy of arresting drug users
and their dealers. This has led to the incarceration of over 500,000 Americans. Meanwhile the flood of illegal drugs

One thing the American government has not done is to

prosecute the largest banks in the world for supporting the drug cartels by washing
billions of dollars of their blood stained money . As Narco sphere journalist Bill Conroy has observed
banks are where the money is in the global drug war. HSBC, Western Union, Bank
into America continues unabated.

of America, JP Morgan Chase&Co, Citigroup, Wachovia amongst many others have allegedly failed to comply with
American anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The Mexican drug cartels have caught the headlines again and again
due to their murderous activities. The war between the different drug cartels and the war between the cartels and
government security forces has spilled the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people. The drug cartels would
find it much harder to profit from their murderous activity if they didnt have too big to fail banks willing to wash
their dirty money. In March 2010 Wachovia cut a deal with the US government which involved the bank being given
fines of $160 million under a deferred prosecution agreement. This was due to Wachovias heavy involvement in

Not one banker was prosecuted for

illegal involvement in the drugs trade. Meanwhile small time drug dealers and users
go to prison. If any member of the public is caught in possession of a few grammes of coke or heroin you can
money laundering moving up to $378.4 billion over several years.

bet your bottom dollar they will be going down to serve some hard time. However, if you are a bankster caught
laundering billions of dollars for some of the most murderous people on the planet you get off with a slap on the
wrist in the form of some puny fine and a deferred prosecution deal. Charles A. Intriago, president of the Miamibased Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists has observed, If youre an individual, and get caught,

if youre a big bank, and youre caught moving money for a

terrorist or drug dealer, you dont have to worry . You just fork over a monetary penalty, and then
raise your fees to make up for it. Until we see bankers walking off in handcuffs to face
charges in these cases, nothing is going to change, Intriago adds. These monetary
you get hammered. But

penalties are just a cost of doing business to them, like paying for a new corporate jet. This failure on the behalf of
the US government to really crack down on the finances of the drug cartels extends to British banks as well. In July
2012 the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a 339 page report detailing
an amazing catalogue of criminal behaviour by London based HSBC. This includes washing over $881 for the
Mexican Sinaloa Cartel and for the Norte del Valle Cartel in Colombia. Besides this, HSBC affiliated banks such as
HBUS repeatedly broke American AML laws by their long standing and severe AML deficiencies which allowed Saudi
banks such as Al Rajhi to finance terrorist groups that included Al-Qaeda. HBUS the American affiliate of HSBC
supplied Al Rajhi bank with nearly $1 billion in US dollars. Jack Blum an attorney and former Senate investigator has
commented, They violated every goddamn law in the book. They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit
business. HSBC affiliate HBUS was repeatedly instructed to improve its anti-money laundering program. In 2003
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York took enforcement action that called upon HBUS to improve its anti-money
laundering program. In September 2010 the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) sent a,blistering
supervisory letter to HBUS listing numerous AML problems at the bank. In October 2010 this was followed up with
the OCC issuing a cease and desist order requiring HBUS to improve its AML program a second time. Senator Carl
Levin chairman of the Senate investigation into HSBC has commented that ,HSBCs Chief Compliance Officer and
other senior executives in London knew what was going on, but allowed the deceptive conduct to continue. Let us
look at just a couple of the devastating findings in the Senate report. The main focus of the report is the multiple
failures of HSBC to comply with AML laws and regulations: The identified problems included a once massive
backlog of over 17,000 alertsidentifying possible suspicious activity that had yet to be reviewed; ineffective
methods foridentifying suspicious activity; a failure to file timely Suspicious Activity Reports with U.S. law
enforcement; a 3-year failure by HBUS [a HSBC affiliate] , from mid-2006 to mid-2009, to conduct any AML
monitoring of $15 billion in bulk cash transactions a failure to monitor $60 trillion in annual wire transfer activity
bycustomers inadequate andunqualified AML staffing; inadequate AML resources; and AML leadership problems.

Sincemany of these criticisms targeted severe, widespread,and long standing AML deficiencies,.. The report
catalogues in great detail the failings of HSBC affiliates HBUS in America and HMEX in Mexico: from 2007 through
2008, HBMX was the single largest exporter ofU.S. dollars to HBUS, shipping $7 billion in cash to HBUS over two
years, outstripping larger Mexican banks and other HSBC affiliates. Mexican and U.S. authorities expressed
repeated concern that HBMXs bulk cash shipments could reach that volume only if they included illegal drug
proceeds. The concern was that drug traffickers unable to deposit large amounts of cash in U.S. banks due to AML
controls were transporting U.S. dollars to Mexico, arranging for bulk deposits there, and then using Mexican
financial institutions to insert the cash back into the U.S. financial system. high profile clients involved in drug
trafficking; millions of dollars in suspicious bulk travelers cheque transactions; inadequate staffing and resources;
and a huge backlog of accounts marked for closure due to suspicious activity, but whose closures were delayed. In
the Senate hearing on 17 July 2012 Carl Levin Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs explained how HMEX helped the Mexican drug cartels: Because our tough AML laws in the United States
have made it hard for drug cartels to find a U.S. bank willing to accept huge unexplained deposits of cash, they now
smuggle U.S. dollars across the border into Mexico and look for a Mexican bank or casa de cambio willing to take
the cash. Some of those casas de cambios had accounts at HBMX. HBMX, in turn, took all the physical dollars it got
and transported them by armored car or aircraft back across the border to HBUS for deposit into its U.S. banknotes
account, completing the laundering cycle. Senator Levin went on to note how: Over two years, from 2007 to 2008,
HBMX shipped $7 billion in physical U.S. dollars to HBUS. That was more than any other Mexican bank, even one
twice HBMXs size. When law enforcement and bank regulators in Mexico and the United States got wind of the
banknotes transactions, they warned HBMX and HBUS that such large dollar volumes were red flags for drug
proceeds moving through the HSBC network. In December 2012 the Department of Justice cut a deal with HSBC
which imposed a record $1.9 billion dollar fine. It may sound a lot to ordinary folks but it is a tiny fraction of its
annual profits which in 2011 totalled $22 billion. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Bauer announced the settlement
at a press conference on 11 December 2012. His comments reveal why the US government decided to go soft on
such criminal behaviour and show quite clearly how there is one law for the richest 1% and one law for the rest of

Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC

would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S. , the future of the institution
us. Lenny Bauer said:

would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.

**Deportation Policy CP
The United States federal government should increase funding
for the Central American Regional Security Initiative and
provide advanced warning when deporting criminals.
US policy, not drugs, is at root of Mexican instability
Bloomberg View 2014 (Exporting mayhem across the border; May 15;
www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/u-dot-s-dot-deportations-fuel-violencein-central-america; kdf)
Obama stepped up
deportations of unauthorized immigrants, especially those with criminal records. Whether the
border is now more secure is debatable. For the nations of Central America,
these policies have been a disaster. An influx of displaced deportees has fed crime
and violence that were already out of controlspurring more El Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans to
seek safety in the U.S., which has led to more asylum requests and deportations. The U.S. government has
a strong interest in stopping this perpetual mayhem machine. Central Americas
instability and weakness have helped make it a transshipment point for 80 percent
of the cocaine entering the U.S. From 2000 to 2010, the number of Central American migrants to
To secure U.S. borders and win Republican support for immigration reform, President

the U.S. rose by more than 50 percent; after Mexico, the three countries that produce the most unauthorized

What did the U.S. expect would

happen when it dumped more criminals into countries already notorious for their
high homicide rates, thriving made-in-the-USA gang networks, and weak judiciaries? With the
immigrants to the U.S. are El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

overwhelming majority of murdersas many as 95 percent of themgoing unpunished in the three countries, its
no wonder the number of Central Americans filing U.S. asylum claims based on fear of return more than doubled
from 2012 to 2013. STORY: The Hostage Situation That Keeps Turkey From Going After Islamic State True, allowing

if Congress and the

Obama administration are going to continue deporting them, they could do some
things to make the U.S. and Central America safer . Instead of cutting funding for the
Central American Regional Security Initiative by 20 percent this year, to $130 million, they
should be raising it and speeding up its delivery. Never mind the immorality of the U.S.
these criminals to stay in U.S. cities and prisons is dangerous and expensive. But

outsourcing the drug war to those least capable of prosecuting it and U.S. culpability in incubating Central
Americas gangs: Day to day, the regions lawlessness and violence affect more Americans than does, say, the war

The U.S. also needs to shift more of its funding from helping with drug
interdiction and beefing up Central American militaries and police to building up
judicial and community institutions. To help Central American authorities cope with more deportees,
the U.S. ought to provide more advance warning and better information on their
criminal records.
in Afghanistan.

--xt Solves instability

Only the CP addresses the root cause of instability
Chardy 2014 (Alfonso; Deportation of criminals blamed for exodus from Central
America; Aug 3; www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/03/4270186/deporation-ofcriminals-blamed.html; kdf)
The unprecedented surge in unaccompanied children at the U.S.-Mexico border was
preceded by a sharp increase in the number of deportations to Central America of
convicts, many of them gang members. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, almost 100,000
convicts were repatriated to Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras exceeding the total
of criminal deportations in the previous six years. Immigrant-rights activists say the spike in criminal
deportations likely played a key role in spreading gang violence in the three Central
American countries the situation many children cite as a reason for coming to the United States. I would
say that these deportations are the most important factor behind the spread of
criminal violence in our countries, which is the chief reason behind the children coming here, said
Francisco Portillo, president of Miami-based Francisco Morazn Honduran Organization, which assists families who
have children at the border.

US deportation policy is the leading cause of crime in Central

America
Berestein Rojas 2014 (Leslie; Transnational gangs: The Central American
migrant crisis' LA connection; Jul 16;
www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2014/07/16/17018/transnational-gangs-how-thecentral-american-migra/; kdf)
As children, teens and families continue to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border from El Salvador, Honduras and
Guatemala, many of these migrants and their advocates have cited gang and drug related violence as one of the

much of that gang violence isn't rooted in Central

America. It's rooted in the United States, particularly in Los Angeles. It's part of a long and
complicated history between the U.S. and Central America , in which the deportation policies of
recent decades figure prominently. "Gang violence has increased steadily over the last
decade or two, and one factor that has contributed to it is that the U.S. has deported a lot
of convicted criminals back to Central America," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S.
main factors driving them north. But

immigration program for the Migration Policy Institute in Washington. "All three of the countries in the northern
triangle are pretty weak states, and so thats given criminal organizations an opportunity to sort of establish
themselves and flourish." The transnational gang phenomenon dates back decades, to the initial mass migration
refugees fleeing civil war in El Salvador and Guatemala. Central Americans began arriving in the U.S. in large
numbers in the 1980s, when both countries were suffering through the height of conflict. Many settled in Los
Angeles, especially a large population of Salvadorans, who moved into working-class urban neighborhoods like PicoUnion and Koreatown. There was already heavy gang presence in Los Angeles, predominantly Mexican-American
and African-American gangs. Some Central American youths began drawing together for protection, the kernel of
what eventually became Mara Salvatrucha, an L.A. gang that has by now become now a powerful international
criminal organization. Others joined the rival 18th Street gang, an offshoot of an established gang that accepted
Central American youths. At the same time, U.S. immigration laws were growing tougher in relation to immigrants
who committed crimes, especially those with gang ties. From the late 1980s on, a series of laws made it easier to
deport immigrants with criminal records. But one particular 1996 law sharply stepped up criminal deportations to
Central America.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act , or

IRAIRA, broadly expanded the list of crimes for which people could be deported, even if
these offenses were committed in the past. It also took away protection for legal residents, meaning even people
who were in the U.S. legally and had spent most of their lives here could be removed if they committed a

deportable offense. It became, as former Mara Salvatrucha gang member Alex Sanchez recalls, like "a witch hunt."
"What this created was a witch hunt of people that had been convicted of a crime 10 years
prior, 20 years prior," said Sanchez, who now directs Homies Unidos, an organization that focuses on gang
prevention and helping ex-gang members adjust to society. "That

created masses of individuals that

were detained, persecuted and picked up at their homes and then processed for
deportation." Between the early 1990s and the late 1990s, IRAIRA essentially doubled the number of criminal
deportees being flown back to Central America, Rosenblum said. And when these young men arrived,
there was no infrastructure to help them adjust. Many did not speak Spanish well, if
at all; some no longer had immediate relatives still living in the country. Sanchez, who came to the U.S. with his
parents during the war when he was 7, was deported when he was 22 in 1994, a couple of years before IRAIRA took
effect. "I was one of those individuals that ... ended up in El Salvador in an airport with only a piece of paper and an
address scribbled," Sanchez recalled. "I didn't know which way to go. Luckily for me, I had a home that belonged to
my grandfather, where I went to. Many other individuals didn't have the same luck. Many ended up homeless."
Some tried to seek shelter at churches, he said. Others tried to seek out relatives but were rejected for their gang
tattoos or for "the stigma that was created in El Salvador and in Central America in general around tattooed
individuals, who were considered the worst of the worst," Sanchez said. But there was one receptive audience:

there were a few local gangs in El Salvador

before deportees from the U.S. began arriving, but that the mass
deportations created a monster.
Disenfranchised local kids. Sanchez says

**Legalize Marijuana
Text: The United States federal government should legalize all
uses of marihuana.
US legalization is the first step in reducing cartel violence key
to reconstructing the market structure
Reisenwitz 14 [Cathy, 8-11. Reisenwitz is Editor-in-Chief of a news and politics
cite and her writing has appeared in Forbes and the Chicago Tribune. US Marijuana
Legalization Already Weakening Mexican Cartels, Violence Expected to Decline.
http://townhall.com/columnists/cathyreisenwitz/2014/08/11/us-marijuanalegalization-already-weakening-mexican-cartels-violence-expected-to-declinen1876088/page/full 7/12]//kmc
Americas first foray into rolling back prohibition 2.0 is barely underway, and already
marijuana prices have dropped low enough to convince some cartel farmers in
Mexico to abandon the crop. Mere months after two US states legalized marijuana sales, five Nobel Prizewinning economists released a UN report recommending that countries end their war on drugs. It would seem they

But in order to further decrease drug-trade violence in so-called

producer states, the US first needs to legalize marijuana , but then also the US must stop using
were onto something.

the UN to pressure producer countries into supply-based drug prohibition. Latin America is the largest global
exporter of cannabis and cocaine. In 2011 the DOJs now-shuttered National Drug Intelligence Center found that the

top cartels controlled the majority of drug trade in marijuana , heroin, and methamphetamine
in over 1,000 US cities. Research into black markets shows that producer
countries experience more violence than consumer countries . In essence,
the global war on drugs is a UN scheme to shrug drug war costs off rich countries
shoulders and onto poor Latin American countries, with horrifyingly violent results.
Much of the recent child migrant crisis is a direct result of children fleeing cartel violence and conscription into

When drug prices are high, cartels will step up and produce. By
keeping demand for cannabis and cocaine high, but supply low, the US in
essence forced the Latin America economy to revolve around drugs . Under
prohibition, there is no more profitable export. And of course violence proliferates
in illegal industries. So in countries where the dominant export is illegal,
violence will be endemic. Thats exactly what the five economists found. Every single one of the 20
criminal gangs.

cities with the highest murder rates in the world are in Latin America. Half of the top 10 global kidnapping hotspots
are Latin American countries. Time magazine reports that the violence in the murder capital of the world, San Pedro

The
cartels are also responsible for an increase in atrocious crimes like
decapitation, usually used against rival gangs. Ending the Drug Wars describes drug
Sula, Honduras, is due to the influx of Mexican drug cartels that funnel U.S.-bound drugs through the country.

prohibition as a transfer of the costs of the drug problem from consumer to producer and transit countries. It
references a report called Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift by the Latin American Commission on
Drugs and Democracy, headed by former Latin American presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria and

Latin Americas willingness to cave to first-world pressure has

had horrific results, including: A rise in organized crime caused both by the
international narcotics trade and by the growing control exercised by criminal groups over domestic
markets and territories A growth in unacceptable levels of drug-related violence affecting the
Ernesto Zedillo found that

whole of society and, in particular, the poor and the young The criminalization of politics and the politicization of
crime, as well as the proliferation of the linkages between them, as reflected in the infiltration of democratic
institutions by organized crime The corruption of public servants, the judicial system, governments, the political
system and, especially the police forces in charge of enforcing law and orders The 200-percent growth rate of the
illegal drug market between 1994 and 2008 explains roughly 25 percent of the current homicide rate in Colombia,

according to recent research. That means Colombia sees about 3,800 more homicides per year on average

But when drug prices drop, the cartels will move

onto other schemes. VICE News asked retired federal agent Terry Nelson whether legalization was hurting
associated with the war on drugs.

the cartels. The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from
marijuana, Nelson said, They arent able to move as much cannabis inside the US now. America, the United
Kingdom and other wealthy states are epicenters of demand. Not only do demand states prohibit drug production
and sales within their borders, but have traditionally used the UN to bully producer countries to do the same
through moves such as the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances of 1988 or the US annual certification process. And for what? The report points out that worldwide drug
prohibition has succeeded in raising prices on illicit drugs. This may have impacted rates of use in consumer
nations. Even if higher prices suppress demand, for which theres little evidence, there is simply no way to look at
the worldwide cost of prohibition as being worth that possible outcome. There is now a new willingness among
certain states, particularly in Latin America, to be vocal about the inherent problems within the system and to try to

Ending the
Drug Wars acknowledges the microeconomic contradictions inherent in
the supply-centric model of control. It calls out the UN for trying to enforce a uniform set of
extricate themselves from the global drug war quagmires, according to Ending the Drug Wars.

prohibitionist oriented policies often at the expense of other, arguably more effective policies that incorporate broad
frameworks of public health and illicit market management. However, the ultimately unresolvable problem with
prohibition is that: In a world where demand remains relatively constant, suppressing supply can have short-run
price effects. However, in a footloose industry like illicit drugs, these price increases incentivise a new rise in supply,
via shifting commodity supply chains. This then feeds back into lower prices and an eventual return to a market

Fixing this problem

might be the most exciting part about ending Americas war on cannabis.
Prices will continue to drop as American growth flourishes. Get ready for
cheap, high-quality weed. And as prices drop and the supply side moves
into the white market, cartels will get out of the game. And just as ending
alcohol prohibition greatly diminished the size, influence, and brutality of
organized crime, so will legalizing weed diminish the size, influence, and
brutality of Mexican cartels. As the epicenters of supply, Latin American countries resemble
equilibrium similar to that which existed prior to the supply-reduction intervention.

Americas inner cities, wracked with violent crime and corruption. Demand countries, however, resemble Americas
suburbs, where the size and scope of the violence pales in comparison. Considering the power wielded by rich
countries compared with poor ones, it shouldnt be surprising that theyd be successful in using international
pressure to turn poor countries into lawless killing fields. Whats galling is that they would choose to use their power

Prohibition doesnt work. But the way it doesnt work

varies greatly depending on whether a state is primarily a producer or a consumer
of illicit substances. Stopping international pressure on producer countries is the
first step to a fairer, more effective international approach to drugs.
this way, and get away with it for decades.

--xt solves cartel violence

Legalizing marijuana solves root causes of cartel violence will
decrease cartel violence and create comprehensive steps to
combat cartels
Grillo 12 [Ioan, 11-1. Grillo is a journalist and author of El Narco: Inside Mexicos
Criminal Insurgency. Hit Mexicos Cartels With Legalization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-cartels-withlegalization.html 7/12]//kmc
we have to face up to the hard reasons why thousands of young men (and
some women) with full mental faculties have become serial killers . These reasons should
Instead,

be taken into account by residents of Colorado, Washington state and Oregon when they vote on referendums to

The painful truth is that the monster of Mexican cartels has

been pumped up by decades of Americans buying illegal drugs under the policies of
prohibition. No one knows exactly how much money Mexican traffickers make, but
reasonable estimates find they pocket $30 billion every year selling cocaine, marijuana,
heroin and crystal meth to American users. Since 1980, the cumulative jackpot could be close to $1 trillion.
Under the law of the jungle, this money goes to the most violent and
sadistic players, so the cartels have spent their dollars on building
increasingly ferocious death squads. There have been a tragic 60,000 killings under President
Felipe Caldern that are described as drug-related. But even this description can be misleading. Most cartel
assassins do not carry out these brutal acts because they are high on drugs. Their
motive is to capture the profits that are so high because in the black market you
can buy drugs for a nickel and sell them for a dollar. How many others would love to
be in a business with a markup of more than 2,000 percent? Marijuana is just one of the
legalize marijuana next Tuesday.

drugs that the cartels traffic. Chemicals such as crystal meth may be too venomous to ever be legalized. But
cannabis is a cash crop that provides huge profits to criminal armies, paying for assassins and guns south of the Rio

The scale of the Mexican marijuana business was illustrated by a mammoth

120-hectare plantation busted last year in Baja California. It had a sophisticated
irrigation system, sleeping quarters for 60 workers and could produce 120 metric
tons of cannabis per harvest. Again, nobody knows exactly how much the whole
Mexico-U.S. marijuana trade is worth, with estimates ranging from $2 billion to $20
billion annually. But even if you believe the lowest numbers, legal marijuana
would take billions of dollars a year away from organized crime. This would
inflict more financial damage than soldiers or drug agents have managed
in years and substantially weaken cartels. It is also argued that Mexican gangsters have
Grande.

expanded to a portfolio of crimes that includes kidnapping, extortion, human smuggling and theft from oil pipelines.

the marijuana trade provides

the crime groups with major resources. That they are committing crimes such as
kidnapping, which have a horrific effect on innocent people, makes cutting off their
financing all the more urgent. The cartels will not disappear overnight. U.S. agents and the Mexican
This is a terrifying truth. But this does not take away from the fact that

police need to continue battling hit squads that wield rocket-propelled grenades and belt-driven machine guns.
Killers who hack off heads still have to be locked away. Mexico needs to clean up corruption among the police and
build a valid justice system. And young men in the barrios have to be given a better option than signing up as

tasks will be easier if the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically

slowed down. Do we really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?
killers. All these

Legalization brings a laundry list of benefits for both the US

and Mexico economic and social gains
Kleiman 14 [Mark, Spring. Kleiman is a professor of public policy at the
University of California Los Angeles. How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis
Legalization.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_
not_to_make_a_hash_out_of049291.php?page=all# 7/12]//kmc
The undeniable gains from legalization consist mostly of getting rid of the
damage done by prohibition. (Indeed, as E. J. Dionne and William Galston have pointed out, polling
suggests that support for legalization is driven more by discontent with prohibition than by enthusiasm for pot.)

Right now, Americans spend about $35 billion a year on illegal cannabis. That
money goes untaxed; the people working in the industry arent gaining legitimate
job experience or getting Social Security credit, and some of them spend time
behind bars and wind up with felony criminal records . About 650,000 users a year get arrested
for possession, something much more likely to happen to a black user than a white one. We also spend about $1
billion annually in public money keeping roughly 40,000 growers and dealers behind bars at any one time. Thats a
small chunk of the incarceration problem, but it represents a lot of money and a lot of suffering. The enforcement
effort, including the use of dynamic entry raids, imposes additional costs in money, liberty, police-community

Cannabis dealing and enforcement dont contribute

much to drug-related violence in the United States, but they make up a
noticeable part of Mexicos problems. Another gain from legalization would be
to move the millions of Americans whose crimes begin and end with using illegal
cannabis from the wrong side of the law to the right one, bringing an array of
benefits to them and their communities in the form of a healthier relationship with
the legal and political systems. Current cannabis users, and the millions of others
who might choose to start using cannabis if the drug became legal, would also
enjoy an increase in personal liberty and be able to pursue, without the fear of legal
consequences, what is for most of them a harmless source of pleasure, comfort,
relaxation, sociability, healing, creativity, or inspiration . For those people,
legalization would also bring with it all the ordinary gains consumers
derive from open competition: lower prices, easier access, and a wider
range of available products and means of administration, held to quality
standards the illicit market cant enforce.
conflict, and, occasionally, lives.

--xt legalization key

Marijuana prohibition drives cartel violence---artificially high
prices sustain criminal enterprises---legalization is key
Paul Armentano 09, Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana Laws, an expert in the field of marijuana policy, health, and
pharmacology, has served as a consultant for Health Canada and the Canadian
Public Health Association, How to End Mexico's Deadly Drug War, 1/18/09, The
Foundation for Economic Education, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-toend-mexicos-deadly-drug-war
The U.S. Office of Drug Control Policy (more commonly known as the drug czars office) says more than 60 percent
of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American
market. To anyone who has studied the marijuana issue, this figure should come as no surprise. An estimated 100
million Americans age 12 or olderor about 43 percent of the countryadmit to having tried pot, a higher

Twenty-five
million Americans admit (on government surveys, no less) to smoking marijuana during the
past year, and 15 million say that they indulge regularly . This high demand,
combined with the drugs artificially inflated black-market value (pot possession has been
illegal under federal law since 1937), now makes cannabis Americas top cash crop . In fact,
according to a 2007 analysis by George Mason University professor Jon Gettman, the annual retail value of
the U.S. marijuana market is some $113 billion . How much of this goes directly to Mexican cartels
percentage, according to the World Health Organization, than any other country on the planet.

is difficult to quantify, but no doubt the percentage is significant. Government officials estimate that approximately
half the marijuana consumed in the United States originates from outside its borders, and they have identified

Because Mexican-grown marijuana tends to

fetch lower prices on the black market than domestically grown weed (a result attributed
Mexico as far and away Americas largest pot provider.

largely to lower production coststhe Mexican variety tends to be grown outdoors, while an increasing percentage

it remains consistently popular among

U.S. consumers, particularly in a down economy. As a result, U.S. law officials now report that some
Mexican cartels are moving to the United States to set up shop permanently. A
of American-grown pot is produced hydroponically indoors),

Congressional Research Service report says low-level cartel members are now establishing clandestine growing
operations inside the United States (thus eliminating the need to cross the border), as well as partnering with
domestic gangs and other criminal enterprises. A March 23 New York Times story speculated that Mexican drug
gangs or their affiliates are now active in some 230 U.S. cities, extending from Tucson, Arizona, to Anchorage,

Americas multibillion-dollar demand for pot is fueling the Mexican

drug trade and much of the turf battles and carnage associated with it. Same
Alaska. In short,

Old Solutions So what are the administrations plans to quell the cartels growing influence and surging violence?

the White House appears intent on recycling the very strategies that gave
rise to Mexicos infamous drug lords in the first place. In March the administration requested
Troublingly,

$700 million from Congress to bolster existing efforts by Washington and Mexican President Felipe Calderns
administration to fight violent trafficking in drugs . . . into the United States. These efforts, as described by the Los
Angeles Times, include: vowing to send U.S. money, manpower, and technology to the southwestern border and
reducing illegal flows (of drugs) in both directions across the border. The administration also announced that it
intends to clamp down on the U.S. demand for illicit drugs by increasing funding for drug treatment and drug

marijuana production is a lucrative

business that attracts criminal entrepreneurs precisely because it is a black-market
(and highly sought after) commodity. As long as pot remains federally prohibited its retail
price to the consumer will remain artificially high, and its production and distribution
will attract criminal enterprises willing to turn to violence (rather than the judicial system) to
maintain their slice of the multi-billion-dollar pie . Second, the United States is already spending
courts. There are three primary problems with this strategy. First,

more money on illicit-drug law enforcement, drug treatment, and drug courts than at any time in our history. FBI
data show that domestic marijuana arrests have increased from under 300,000 annually in 1991 to over 800,000

today. Police seizures of marijuana have also risen dramatically in recent years, as has the amount of taxpayer
dollars federal officials have spent on so-called educational efforts to discourage the drugs use. (For example,
since the late 1990s Congress has appropriated well over a billion dollars in anti-pot public service announcements
alone.) Yet despite these combined efforts to discourage demand, Americans use more pot than anyone else in the

law enforcements recent attempts to crack down on the cartels

marijuana distribution rings, particularly new efforts launched by the Caldern administration in Mexico,
are driving the unprecedented wave in Mexican violencenot abating it . The New York
world. Third,

Times states: A crackdown begun more than two years ago by President Felipe Caldern, coupled with feuds over
turf and control of the organizations, has set off an unprecedented wave of killings in Mexico. . . . Many of the
victims were tortured. Beheadings have become common. Because of this escalating violence, Mexico now ranks
behind only Pakistan and Iran as the administrations top international security concern. Despite the rising death
toll, drug war hawks at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) remain adamant that the United States
and Mexicos supply side strategies are in fact successful. Our view is that the violence we have been seeing is a
signpost of the success our very courageous Mexican counterparts are having, acting DEA administrator Michele
Lionhart said recently. The cartels are acting out like caged animals, because they are caged animals. President
Obama also appears to share this view. After visiting with the Caldern government in April, he told CNN he
intended to beef up security on the border. When asked whether the administration would consider alternative
strategies, such as potentially liberalizing pots criminal classification, Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano replied that such an option is not on the table. A New Remedy By contrast the Caldern
administration appears open to the idea of legalizing marijuanaor at least reducing criminal sanctions on the
possession of small quantities of drugsas a way to stem the tide of violence. Last spring Mexican lawmakers made
the possession of personal-use quantities of cannabis and other illicit substances a noncriminal offense. And in April

Sarukhan, told CBSs Face the Nation that

legalizing the marijuana trade was a legitimate option for both the Mexican and U.S.
governments. [T]hose who would suggest that some of these measures [legalization] be looked at understand
Mexicos ambassador to the United States, Arturo

the dynamics of the drug trade, Sarukhan said. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox recently echoed Sarukhans
remarks, as did a commission of former Latin American presidents. I believe

its time to open the debate

over legalizing drugs, Fox told CNN in May. It cant be that the only way [to try to control illicit drug use] is
for the state to use force. Writing recently on CNN.com, Harvard economist and Freeman contributor Jeffrey Miron
said that ending drug prohibitionon both sides of the borderis the only realistic and viable way to put a
permanent stop to the rising power and violence associated with Mexicos drug traffickers. Prohibition

creates violence because it drives the drug market underground , he wrote. This
means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or
advertising, so they resort to violence instead . . . . The only way to reduce
violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs.

Marijuanas key---legalization weakens the cartels sufficiently

to allow current operations to succeed
Ioan Grillo 12, author, journalist, writer and TV producer based in Mexico City,
has reported on Mexico and Latin American since 2001, Hit Mexicos Cartels With
Legalization, 11/1/12, NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hitmexicos-cartels-with-legalization.html
Marijuana is just one of the drugs that the cartels traffic. Chemicals such as crystal meth may be too venomous to
ever be legalized. But

cannabis is a cash crop that provides huge profits to criminal

armies, paying for assassins and guns south of the Rio Grande. The scale of the Mexican marijuana business
was illustrated by a mammoth 120-hectare plantation busted last year in Baja California. It had a sophisticated
irrigation system, sleeping quarters for 60 workers and could produce 120 metric tons of cannabis per harvest.

nobody knows exactly how much the whole Mexico-U.S. marijuana trade is
worth, with estimates ranging from $2 billion to $20 billion annually. But even if you believe the lowest
numbers, legal marijuana would take billions of dollars a year away from organized
crime. This would inflict more financial damage than soldiers or drug agents have
managed in years and substantially weaken cartels . It is also argued that Mexican
gangsters have expanded to a portfolio of crimes that includes kidnapping, extortion, human
Again,

this does not take away from the

fact that the marijuana trade provides the crime groups with major resources. That
they are committing crimes such as kidnapping, which have a horrific effect on
innocent people, makes cutting off their financing all the more urgent . The cartels will
not disappear overnight. U.S. agents and the Mexican police need to continue battling hit
squads that wield rocket-propelled grenades and belt-driven machine guns. Killers who hack off heads still have
smuggling and theft from oil pipelines. This is a terrifying truth. But

to be locked away. Mexico needs to clean up corruption among the police and build a valid justice system. And

these tasks will be

easier if the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically slowed down . Do we
young men in the barrios have to be given a better option than signing up as killers. All
really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?

--xt solves stability

Marijuana legalization causes a decrease in US crime root
cause of drug related violence is the use of illegal drugs, not
the active THC ingredients
Ferner 14 [Matt, 3-27. Legalizing Medical Marijuana May Actually Reduce Crime,
Study Says. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/medical-marijuana-crimestudy_n_5044397.html 7/12/15]//kmc
"We believe that medical marijuana legalization poses no threat of
increased violent crime," Robert Morris, the study's lead author, told The Huffington Post. Morris,
associate professor of criminology at UT Dallas, and his colleagues looked at crime
rates for all 50 U.S. states from 1990 to 2006. During this period, 11 states legalized
medical marijuana. The researchers examined legalization's effect on what the FBI
calls Part I crimes, which include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny and auto theft. "After controlling for a host of known factors
related to changes in crime rates -- we accounted for factors such as poverty,
employment, education, even per capita beer sales, among other things -- we
found no evidence of increases in any of these crimes for states after
legalizing marijuana for medical use," Morris said. "In fact, for some forms of violence
-- homicide and assault -- we found partial support for declines after the
passing of this legislation." Data for the study came from state websites, FBI Uniform Crime Reports,
the census, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Beer Institute. The study did
not explore a relationship between marijuana use and violent crime, Morris said. Rather, the research team looked
at legalization's effect on crime. Other studies have failed to establish a link between marijuana use and crime.

"The findings on the relationship between violence and marijuana use are mixed
and much of the evidence points toward reductions in violent behavior for those
who smoke marijuana," Morris said. "In fact, researchers have suggested that any
increase in criminality resulting from marijuana use may be explained by
its illegality, rather than from the substance itself." Other research suggests alcohol is
a much more significant factor than marijuana when it comes to violent crime. A report from the National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that 25 percent to 30 percent of violent crimes are linked to alcohol use. A
separate study in the journal of Addictive Behaviors noted that "alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence

"cannabis reduces likelihood of

violence during intoxication." The National Academy of Sciences found that in
chronic marijuana users, THC -- the active ingredient in pot -- actually causes a
decrease in "aggressive and violent behavior." Laws in 20 states and the
District of Columbia allow marijuana for medical use. Colorado and Washington
state have legalized marijuana for recreational use. About a dozen other states are
likely to legalize marijuana in some form in the coming years. Michael Elliott,
executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group, said he was pleased, but not
surprised, by the new research. "As a trade association, we have supported the
development of this comprehensive regulatory framework, including transparency,
accountability, licensing, background checks, financial disclosures, seed to sale
tracking, and consumer safety protections like packaging, labeling, and testing,"
Elliott said. "While this program is cumbersome for the small business owners in this industry, it is far better
than choosing black market operators who use violence to dominate the
sale of marijuana and prey on our children.
to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship," and that

--xt: Solves econ

Drug violence via cartels endangers the US economy only
legalization solves
Tielemans 14 [Otto Raul, 6/16. Research Associate at the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs. Authoritarianism On The Rise: The War on Drugs Erosion of
Mexican Democracy. http://www.coha.org/authoritarianism-on-the-rise-the-war-ondrugs-erosion-of-mexican-democracy/ 7/13]//kmc
Mexicos progressive shift towards authoritarianism is not simply the result of the executive and
military actively pursuing greater power; it is also the net result of a crippling economic
environment and violent social atmosphere. Following a series of bank crises and global financial
meltdowns, Mexico has been plagued with having to battle a series of economic catastrophes. Its economy
has been estimated to have an annual GDP of $1.2 trillion USD, which is limited in
its ability to expand due to the high cost of security that is needed for economic
enterprises to operate within the country. According to some scholars, security expenditures add an
additional 8 to 15 percent to business operations [24]. And although the Mexican government has been on an
aggressive campaign to attract foreign investors to the countrys burgeoning manufacturing sector, the fact of the
matter is that the danger and high costs of business operations handicap economic prosperity. This, in combination
with an increased level of militarized warfare, is estimated to decrease economic growth by approximately 1% [25].
The combination of these factors inhibits the government from creating jobs that would otherwise help employ

With more than 52 percent of the population

living in extreme poverty, financial disparity makes the countrys impoverished
persons prime bait for drug cartels [26]. While dangerous, the hefty salary paid by organized crime
ensures the loyalty and steady supply of countless workers. As it stands, drug cartels employ over
half a million people in Mexico alone [27]. Their growing network of well-paid
criminals not only ensures a steady flow of narcotics to North America and Europe,
but also guarantees the perpetuation of the War on Drugs by having citizens feed
into the very system that the Mexican government is attempting to dismantle. Due to
some of the countys 6 million unemployed citizens.

the increasing scope of the conflict, the government is likely to restrict civil liberties and continue to endow the
executive and military with relatively unchecked powers in order to resolve the issue at hand. This erosion of liberal
democratic values, regardless of good intentions, will ensure the growth of authoritarianism in a country whose

The War on Drugs is

approaching a decade of violence with increasing evidence that the endless
violence is setting the stage for antidemocratic governance to engulf the country.
With reports citing an approximate 1.6 million people as having been displaced, momentum has grown
within the public to equip the government with the power necessary to end the drug
cartels reckless actions [28]. Polls from 2012 demonstrate that 80 percent of the
Mexican population supports using the army to combat drug violence [29]. Studies show
history is blotched with right-wing dictatorships and vast periods of oppression.

that almost three in every four individuals (73 percent) viewed the military positively in 2012. Moreover, trust in

With the average citizen

demonstrating an increased sense of trust in their government and the armed
forces, civil society has overwhelmingly rejected the notion of defending human
rights and basic liberties. As a matter of fact, the argument could be made that the Mexican public has
national government leaped from 54 to 65 percent between 2011 and 2012 [30].

decided to trade basic liberties for security. Especially with one-third of the population being in favor of having the
United States send troops to Mexico, sovereignty and civil liberties are viewed as insignificant by a considerable
number of the Mexican populace when it comes to combating unmanageable levels of violence [31]. Finally,
ambitious politicians and power-hungry military leaders are not the only catalyst in Mexicos reactionary shift
towards an illiberal democracy. The governments failure to create an adequate number of jobs, in addition to
prolonged warfare between government forces and criminal organizations, has driven desperate citizens into
fostering a climate that favors the deterioration of democratic values in exchange for a perceived sense of security.

Prospects For A Better Tomorrow? Mexico is cursed by its geography. Although blessed with vast oil reserves, the
fact that the country is nestled between the United States (the worlds largest consumer of illegal drugs) and South
America (a region of vast narcotic production) ensures that it is constantly battling with drugs trafficking across its

U.S. pressures to dismantle the operations of drug producers,

in addition to social unrest, puts the Mexican government in a difficult position. While
borders [32]. Needless to say,

everyone who loves Mexico wants to see it flourish as a developed country, the fact is until Mexico can attract
investments, create a greater number of jobs, and restore social tranquility; it is inevitable that criminal
organizations will continue to prey on impoverished and poorly educated persons. These shortcomings will only add
to the conflict, resulting in continued violence and countless fatalities. It is highly unlikely that Mexicos War on
Drugs will be resolved in the near future.

If violence does subside, then the country will have a

much easier task addressing issues of wealth disparity, lackluster education, and
poor labor conditions. Sadly, the reality of the situation is that violence will continue
and the government will actively attempt to grant itself with greater, unchecked
powers to combat the problem. Doing so will inevitably dismantle what remains of
the countrys democratic fabric and condemn the nation and its people to
oppression by corrupt government officials.

Mexican economy key to US economic stability

Buck 12 [Stephanie, 6-20. Why You Should Care About Mexico.
http://www.cipe.org/blog/2012/06/20/why-you-should-care-aboutmexico/#.VaLHmJNVikp 7/12]//kmc
the Mexican and US economies
are becoming increasingly integrated in ways that blur traditional
understandings of trade. The regional supply chains of US companies criss-cross
the US-Mexico border, meaning that Mexico and the US work together to
manufacture goods that are eventually sold on the global market. For example, cars
built in North America may cross the border as many as eight times as they are
being produced. In other words, the US and Mexico are more than just neighbors. Economic
interdependence, shared cultural heritage, and grim security issues that both countries must
face together mean that what happens in Mexico affects the US in more
ways than just immigration and drug trafficking. Mexicos economic, political,
In addition to providing each other with important export markets,

institutional, social, and security challenges are all interconnected: whoever wins the Mexican presidential elections
on July 1 will have to face a myriad of complex problems. He or she will help set policies that will both directly and

A Mexico
that is fully equipped with leaders who can help navigate the process to
the reforms the country needs is an even more important economic and
political ally that can help increase prosperity throughout the region. This
is not a zero-sum game. If Mexico flourishes, the US will also flourish.
indirectly affect everyone from US business leaders to migrant workers to white suburban teenagers.

at: Links to politics

Avoids the link to politics states and bipart agreement will
take the heat for legalization, not Obama
Ferber 6/16 [Matt, 2015. Obama: If Enough States Decriminalize Marijuana,
Congress May Change Federal Law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/obama-marijuanadecriminalization_n_6881374.html 7/12]//kmc
President Barack Obama said if enough states reform their marijuana
laws, Congress may change federal law that continues to make the drug
illegal. Obama, during an interview with Vice Media co-founder Shane Smith released in full on Monday, said
he's encouraged that liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans
seem to agree that current U.S. marijuana laws don't make sense. "We may
be able to make some progress on the decriminalization side," Obama said. "At a
certain point, if enough states end up decriminalizing, then Congress may then
reschedule marijuana." Last week, Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (DN.Y.) introduced a bill that would reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug, which has high potential for abuse and
no medical value, to a Schedule II drug, which has lower potential danger and recognized medical benefits.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have decriminalized the possession of
small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Twenty-three states have legalized
marijuana for medical purposes. Four states, as well as D.C., have legalized
recreational marijuana. "I'd separate out the issue of criminalization of marijuana
from encouraging its use," Obama said. "I think there's no doubt that our criminal
justice system, generally, is so heavily skewed towards cracking down on nonviolent drug offenders that it has not just had a terrible effect on many communities
-- particularly communities of color -- rendering a lot of folks unemployable because
they got felony records, disproportionate prison sentences. It costs a huge amount
of money to states and a lot of states are figuring that out. "But what I'm
encouraged by is you're starting to see not just liberal Democrats, but also
some very conservative Republicans recognize this doesn't make sense -including the libertarian wing of the Republican Party." Obama cautioned that
legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, or any other substance, isn't a panacea. "I think there is a legitimate
concern about the overall effects this has on society, particularly vulnerable parts of our society," Obama said.

"Substance abuse generally, legal and illegal substances, is a problem. Locking

somebody up for 20 years is probably not the best strategy, and that is something
we have to rethink as a society as a whole."

cp will be perceived as bipart means Obama wont need to

push
Angell 7/8 [Tom, 2015. Tom Angell is the founder and chairman of Marijuana
Majority, and serves as media relations director of Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition. Before joining LEAPs staff, Tom worked for six years with Students for
Sensible Drug Policy, first as a student chapter leader and then as a national staffer.
House Bill Creates New Federal Category for Marijuana Research.
http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2015/07/house-bill-creates-new-federalcategory-for-marijuana-research/ 7/15]//kmc

Some of the biggest supporters and opponents of marijuana law reform in Congress
are teaming up on new bipartisan legislation that would create a new category
of federal law to regulate cannabis research. The proposal, which is an amendment to a larger bill
aimed at accelerating the development of new medicines, would set up a new section of the Controlled Substances

It
also includes a Sense of Congress clause calling on the National Institutes of
Health and the Drug Enforcement Administration to collaborate on studying the
benefits and risks of using marijuana as a medical treatment. Sponsoring the
amendment is a collection of strange bedfellows from both parties, including Rep. Andy
Harris (R-MD), who led unsuccessful efforts to block Washington, D.C. from
implementing its marijuana legalization and decriminalization laws, and Rep. Earl
Blumenauer (D-OR), who is the chief author of bills aimed at increasing military
veterans access to medical cannabis and providing fair tax rates for state-legal
marijuana businesses. Also signed on are Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), who co-led
successful efforts to pass amendments prohibiting the Department of Justice from
spending money to interfere with state medical marijuana laws, and Rep. Morgan
Griffith (R-VA), who is the lead sponsor of legislation to allow use of cannabidiol-rich
marijuana strains by children suffering from severe seizure disorders . Given the
Act, called Schedule I-R, that is designed to facilitate credible research on the medical efficacy of marihuana.

widespread use of medical marijuana, it is imperative that doctors better understand how it can be used to treat

Our
amendment shows members of Congress with widely varying views on marijuana
policy are united in support of building a robust body of scientific information on
medical marijuana.
different people and conditions, as well as the risks involved, Rep. Blumenauer told Marijuana.com.

Pc isnt key interest groups and bipart efforts will push the cp
through Congress
Hermes 15 [Kris, 3/10. US Senators Introduce Unprecedented, Sweeping
Bipartisan Medical Marijuana Bill Aimed at Protecting Patients.
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/41463/us-senators-introduce-unprecedentedsweeping-bipartisan-medical-marijuana-bill-aimed-at-protecting-patients/ 7/15]//kmc
Comprehensive medical marijuana legislation was introduced
Tuesday in the United States Senate for the first time in the countrys history.
Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
introduced the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States
(CARERS) Act to end the federal prohibition on medical marijuana and allow states
to set their own policies. The CARERS Act is endorsed by several advocacy groups
including Americans for Safe Access (ASA), which helped Senate authors develop the legislation .
The CARERS Act will reclassify marijuana for medical use, overhaul the banking laws
so as not to punish licensed businesses, allow veterans to have access to medical
marijuana, and eliminate current barriers to research. Currently, twenty-three states
and the District of Columbia have adopted medical marijuana laws, and another
twelve states have adopted laws allowing for the consumption of a specific form of
cannabis known as Cannabidiol or CBD commonly used to treat seizure disorders. Despite the
WASHINGTON, DC

passage of medical marijuana laws in more than half of the United States, it remains illegal under federal law.
Because of this, qualified patients who use medical marijuana in compliance with state law are still at risk of federal
enforcement, as are dispensary owners and government regulators.

Census CPs

**Eliminate the Census

Text: The United States federal government should eliminate the census.
The process of naming that the census creates is badtheir author agrees
that getting rid of it would solve better than the aff.
Mezey, 03- (Naomi Mezey is an Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center) Erasure and
recognition: The census, race and the national imagination Northwestern Law Review Vol. 94. Issue 4, Summer
2003, NU Law Publishinh, Proquest, //droneofark

One of the most effective ways in which the law calls people into being is by naming
them. But it also unnames people, sometimes consciously, sometimes just as a
necessary consequence of naming others. To the extent that law enforces some
identities, it "unmakes" others.379 So it is with the census. By making and using some racial
categories, the census effectively undoes other categorical possibilities. One of the reasons Asian Americans have
lobbied to retain a list of specific national origins on the census form is so that the naming of Asians as Asians does

By failing to recognize a multiracial category,

OMB incidentally unnamed those who understand themselves as multiracial. But the
Census Bureau unnamed (or renamed) them more overtly by officially calling those
who report more than one race "The Two or More Races Population." This is akin to the
not unname Chinese, Samoans, and Vietnamese.380

South African practice of calling African, colored, and Indian people "previously disadvantaged individuals."381 Of

in naming themselves, groups must create and enforce boundaries of their

own, and this is no less true of those within the multiracial movement who have
keenly felt the boundaries of other groups. 382 The census, by naming and counting,
is engaged in a powerful business. "To ask some questions is to sacrifice others. The
boundaries of official inquiry are the statistical counterpart to the boundaries of the
political agenda; and it is an elementary point of political analysis that the control of
such boundaries is a critical face of power." 383 Official questions and government classifications
are powerful in both creative and repressive ways. They create deep cognitive commitments as
well as provide avenues of control. "Official categories may help to constitute or
divide groups and to illuminate or obscure their problems and achievements." 384
course,

Official categories name, and by naming unname. They recognize, and through recognition erase. While ultimately I
agree with David Theo Goldberg that, as paradoxical as it seems, we need "to count by race in order to undo racial
counting,"385 the narrative of this Article is not directed toward a decision about whether race counting by the
census is, on balance, worth it. Just as rights entail regulation and repression,386 just as culture constrains,387 I

The census, as
a powerful legal mechanism, has played a crucial role in affirming and disciplining
groups, in making and unmaking, and in naming and unnaming the boundaries of
group and national identity.
have attempted to show how legal and regulatory regimes that recognize identity also erase it.

**Optional Category CP
Text: The United States federal government should make the race portion
of the census optional.
The CP would solve polyculturalism betterthe inclusion of the racial
category has helped different racial groups form a common identity to be
recognized which has the power to affirm identity
Mezey, 03- (Naomi Mezey is an Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center) Erasure and
recognition: The census, race and the national imagination Northwestern Law Review Vol. 94. Issue 4, Summer
2003, NU Law Publishinh, Proquest, //droneofark

the modern census classifications of race, like the nineteenth century

classifications before them, have influenced the meanings and politics of race. Historian David
Hollinger has called Statistical Directive 15 "the single event most responsible for the
lines" that configure our understanding of race, an understanding which he calls the
ethno-racial pentagon of African American, Asian American, Native American,
Hispanic, and white.272 Other scholars mark Directive 15 as the point when "the use of racial classification
shifted from one of exclusion to one of explicit inclusion of specific groups."273 In this context, where the
census is one of the primary vehicles for the distribution of certain group
protections and entitlements based on race, one sees the strategic investment in
the politics of enumeration for many groups in the modern welfare state. The
engagement with the politics of enumeration has been not only strategic, but also
deeply symbolic for some communities of identity. The symbolic consequences of
census inclusion might also be said to derive from the civil rights movement in the
sense that it helped give rise to identity politics and multiculturalism, movements in
their own right which spawned claims for "official" recognition by many groups . These
recognition claims were often made on the basis of color, but as often served as a proxy for culture.274 With the
demise of scientific accounts of racial difference, and the ascendancy of social and
political explanations,275 identity politics became the arena in which communities
and individuals alike struggled for cultural recognition by society at large . As Charles
Taylor has made clear, identities are always dialogical, forged through interactions and
relationships with others, and in that sense they rely on recognition by others (and
conversely, can be harmed by misrecognition by others).276 In this way, identity politics emphasized
the need to be affirmed by others and the overriding value of recognition by the
state, itself symbolic of national inclusion. Thus the census has been an important
mechanism for symbolic inclusion in the nation, quite apart from the material
consequences of being counted that have inspired the strategic push for inclusion
by groups. However, it is important to note that precisely because identities do not have an independent existence, but rather
depend on social and cultural acknowledgment to be called into being, the race categories on the census have
always played a dual role: of recognizing identity and also of conferring it. As Sharon
Lee has observed, "One function of official race classifications is to create a sense of
group membership or even community where there had been none before." 277 Lee
Needless to say,

points to the way in which the creation of an official category coalesces a group that may not have understood itself
as a group before, or at least was not commonly understood to be a group. For example, "the social construction of
a pan-ethnic racial group called White served to minimize ethnic differences among the numerous European ethnic

groups while fostering a common racial identity. It also hardened the division between White and Others."278

More recently, the census classification of Asian has had a similar effect of creating,
among heterogeneous groups of Asian descent, a common pan-ethnic identity
through which people have come to see themselves and others .279 This was also true
much earlier of counting the Chinese as Chinese; it created a Chinese identity for people who had not necessarily
thought of themselves that way before, and it created a Chinese race, which at least for a time did not include other
Asians.280

The National Academy of Sciences report on federal race classification

similarly claims that it was the Census Bureau's use of the then uncommon
designation of "Hispanic" in the early 1970s that led to its wide circulation and use
as an identity referent.281 As that report attests, "[t]here is a symbiotic relationship
between categories for the tabulation of data and the processes of group
consciousness and social recognition, which in turn can be reflected in specific
legislation and social policy."282 Because official recognition has the power, not just of
acknowledging an identity that already exists, but of conferring or solidifying an identity around a
particular set of characteristics, it is not surprising that the census became one of
the grand prizes in the politics of identity. More surprising is the easy assumption
many make that recognition has effectively displaced erasure as the motivation for
enumeration. Certainly the current rhetoric of inclusion adopted by the state has
appeared to change the stakes of counting. But just as exclusion depends on
categorical recognition, so categorical recognition depends on exclusions: every
group that is officially identified as such creates new axes of visibility and power,
and new erasures as well. Thus, it is somewhat ironic that roughly 100 years after first counting the
Chinese in a retributive act of erasure, the census has become the principle vehicle of official recognition in the
politics of identity and in political accounting.

**Ban Racial Profiling

Text: The United States federal government should extend the Justice
Departments rules for racial profiling to all government agents.
Profiling is the basis for race-based discrimination- not allowing the
government to profile solves for greater state-based instances of racism.
Horwitz, 14- (Sari Horwitz covers the Justice Department and criminal justice issues nationwide for The
Washington Post) Justice Dept. announces new rules to curb racial profiling by federal law enforcement The
Washington Post, December 8, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-toannounce-new-rules-to-curb-racial-profiling-by-federal-law-enforcement/2014/12/07/e00eca18-7e79-11e4-9f3895a187e4c1f7_story.html //droneofark

The Obama administration on Monday formally announced long-awaited curbs on

racial profiling by federal law enforcement, but the new rules will not cover local
police departments, which have come under criticism in recent months over
allegations that their officers profile suspects. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded
Justice Department rules for racial profiling to prevent FBI agents from considering
gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition
to race and ethnicity, when opening cases . The department also is banning racial profiling from
national security cases for the first time. Holders revised policy covers state and local law
enforcement officers while they participate in federal law enforcement task forces .
But it is considered only guidance for police officers in state and local departments. The profiling rules come at a
time of racial tension around the country after the recent deaths of three African Americans at the hands of police in
Ferguson, Mo., New York and Cleveland, and the absence of criminal charges against the white police officers who

As attorney general, I have repeatedly made clear that profiling by law

enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and ineffective, Holder
said. Particularly in light of certain recent incidents weve seen at the local level,
and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process, its
imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound policing
practices. A Justice Department official said the goal is for federal law enforcement agencies
to model these policies, proving to state and local authorities that successful
policing does not require profiling. Holder held a conference call Monday with local law enforcement
were involved.

leaders to brief them on the policy and encourage them to adopt it. At this historic moment in our nations race
relations, the release of this revised guidance is an important signal of progress, but it does not completely address
the need for reform of policing tactics at the state and local level, said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American

The rules also apply for the first time to many

activities at the Department of Homeland Security, including all Immigration and
Customs Enforcement civil immigration enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard law
enforcement activities, Border Patrol activities not near the border, DHS officers
protecting government buildings and federal air marshals. But DHS officials will not be
Civil Liberties Unions Washington legislative office.

covered by the new racial profiling ban when they screen airline passengers and guard the countrys Southwestern
border. Customs and Border Protection, for example, still will be allowed to use profiling when conducting
screenings and inspections at the countrys ports of entry and interdictions of travelers at the border, government
officials said. Secret Service protective activities also will not be covered by the rules. Having a particular skin
color, religious belief or last name is not a crime, said Rajdeep Singh, director of law and policy at the Sikh
Coalition, the largest Sikh American civil liberties organization. This is not a 50-50 issue. The Obama administration
can either ban profiling or allow it. It sounds like theyre committed to allowing it. A fact sheet on the policy said
that some DHS activity is not covered by the policy because of the unique nature of DHSs mission. This does not
mean that officers and agents are free to profile, according to the DHS fact sheet.

To the contrary, DHSs existing

policies make it categorically clear that profiling is prohibited, while articulating limited circumstances where it is
permissible to rely in part on these characteristics, because of the unique nature of border and transportation

President George W. Bush banned racial

profiling in 2003, but the prohibition did not apply to national security investigations
and covered only race not religion, national origin, gender or sexual orientation
and gender identity. Civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers have pushed for
expanded anti-profiling protections since President Obama was elected in 2008 .
security as compared to traditional law enforcement.

Holder began the process to revamp the rules in 2009 and considers the new policy one of the signature
accomplishments of his tenure. About six months ago, the Justice Department delivered the rules to the White
House. But they applied only to the department, and White House officials wanted the polices to cover additional

The rules have been delayed in part because DHS officials pushed the White
House and the Justice Department to allow major exclusions for agencies such as
the Transportation Security Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
and Customs and Border Protection. In several high-level meetings, DHS Secretary
Jeh Johnson argued that immigration and customs agents and airport screeners
needed to consider a variety of factors to keep the nation safe, according to officials
familiar with his personal efforts. TSA officials argued that the rules should not apply to them because
agencies.

the TSA is not a law enforcement agency. In its fact sheet, DHS officials said that they will review activities not
directly covered by the guidance to ensure that we are including every appropriate safeguard and civil rights
protection in the execution of those important security activities, and to enhance our policies where necessary.

But that was not enough assurance for civil liberties advocates. Its baffling that
even as the government recognizes that bias-based policing is patently
unacceptable, it gives a green light for the FBI, TSA and CBP to profile racial,
religious and other minorities, the ACLUs Murphy said. This guidance is not an
adequate response to the crisis of racial profiling in America.

**Gender Categories CP
Text: The United States federal government should
- repeal the REAL ID Act and eliminate the requirement for listing
gender on drivers licenses and state ID cards.
-

further update the passport gender marker policy to allow for

certification of gender change by licensed therapists, psychologists,
and nurse practitioners, and to eliminate remaining burdensome
procedural requirements.

eliminate computer matching of gender data in all remaining datamatching programs.

issue an updated Model State Vital Statistics Act that provides for
gender change on birth certificates based on certification from a
mental health or medical provider, without proof of specific medical
or surgical procedures and without a court order

should review all new government forms and updates to forms to

eliminate collection of gender data in cases where it does not serve
a clear programmatic purpose.

The aff cant account for the ongoing violence done to groups outside of
the censusthe cp solves for greater polycultural efforts.
National Center for Transgender Equality, 15- (the nations leading social justice advocacy
organization winning life-saving change for transgender people.) A Blueprint for Equality: Documents and
Privacy (2015) Transequality.org, 2015 http://transequality.org/issues/resources/a-blueprint-for-equality-iddocuments-and-privacy-2015 //droneofark
In todays world, identification documents are needed to travel, open bank accounts, start new jobs, purchase

Recent voter suppression efforts by some

state legislatures have made voting an activity in which trans people without
accurate ID may face unfair difficulties. Historically, state and federal governments
have imposed intrusive and burdensome requirements such as proof of surgery and court
ordersthat have made it impossible for many trans people to obtain accurate and
consistent ID. For many people, financial barriers, medical contraindications or simply a lack of medical need
for surgeries make these requirements impossible to satisfy. As a result, out of those National
Transgender Discrimination Survey respondents who had transitioned, only one-fifth
(21%) had been able to update all of their IDs and records with their new gender.
One-third (33%) had not updated any IDs or records. At the time of the survey, only 59% had
been able to update their gender on their drivers license or state ID; 49% had
updated their Social Security Record; 26% their passport; and just 24% their birth
certificate.1 The survey results also confirmed what most trans people already knewthat genderincongruent identification exposes people to a range of negative outcomes, from
denial of employment, housing, and public benefits to harassment and physical
violence.2 Because of the work done by NCTE and activists around the country, this trend is now reversing
alcohol, and even to purchase some cold medicines.

quickly. About half of states no longer impose such burdensome requirements for drivers licenses and state IDs and

growing numbers are streamlining procedures. NCTE has worked with the American Association of Motor Vehicles

Since 2010, onerous requirements

for gender change on federal documents and records such as passports and green
cards have also been eliminated. State-level efforts have won improvements in birth
Agencies to educate state agencies about current best practices.

certificate laws and policies in California, Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, Washington State and

These developments represent a growing recognition that older,

more restrictive policies have served little, if any, purpose, and that reasonable
policies enabling everyone to obtain accurate and consistent ID best serve both
government agencies and individuals. There is still more to do , however. While eliminating
the most draconian requirements for ID change, many existing federal and state policies are still
unduly burdensome in requiring medical certifications from physicians, rather than
accepting certifications from therapists or other non-physician health providers, or
simply from the individuals themselves. In addition to ID documents, other government
records and programs unintentionally cause the disclosure of information about a
persons transgender status without their consent. Chief among these are computer matching
the District of Columbia.

programs used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for identity verification, which have outed individuals
when gender data is inconsistent between records. In response to NCTEs efforts, SSA announced in 2011 that it
would halt gender matching in its Social Security Number Verification System, the largest matching service used by

This change alone has prevented workplace problems for many trans
people. However, automated gender matching has not yet been eliminated in other
SSA programs used to share data with state programs and other entities . Government
should not needlessly compel the disclosure of a persons medical history or transgender status. The federal
government has taken important steps to end these problems and should act
promptly to modernize and harmonize policies across agencies. Ultimately, listing
gender on drivers licenses, state ID cards and many other documents is simply
unnecessary and should be eliminated.
private employers.

--xt: solvency
The CP solves
National Center for Transgender Equality, 11- (the nations leading social justice advocacy
organization winning life-saving change for transgender people.) Policy Brief: Birth Certificate Gender Markers
Transequality.org, 2011 http://transequality.org/issues/resources/a-blueprint-for-equality-id-documents-andprivacy-2015 //droneofark
A birth certificate is an important document used to prove ones identity and citizenship. For those who can afford

However, the ability to change ones sex

designation on birth certificates remains an important issue for many transgender
people. As lawyers at Lambda Legal point out, states have varying procedures for updating
these documents, and a few actually prohibit changing the gender marker on birth
certificates. Many states model their policies for amending birth certificates on the
Model Vital Statistics Act and Regulations (or Model Law). Currently being revised, the Model Law is
one, a passport can serve the same purposes.

developed by consultation between the state and federal governments and was last updated in 1992. The Model
Law is intended to be a guide for states, so that states can model their own vital statistics laws and regulations after

The 1992 Model Law says that a person wanting

to change their sex on their birth certificate should present a court order certifying
that their sex has been changed by surgical procedure. There are three problems
with this approach, which many states still use. First, the requirement of a court order
can create a barrier to those transgender people who dont have enough money to
hire a lawyer or who dont have enough knowledge to navigate the legal system on
their own. Also, some courts are hesitant to issue orders amending birth certificates that were issued by another
its suggestions. Whats wrong with these laws?

state, creating problems for transgender people who want to change their birth certificate after they move away
from the state where they were born. Second, the Model Laws requirement of a surgical procedure in every case
is at odds with the medical community. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)
recognizes that different patients will have different medical needs. Surgical treatments may be necessary and
appropriate for some transgender individuals, but not for others. The Model Law ignores the differing needs of

Third, the Model Law does not say what the new birth certificate
should look like after the proper documentation is submitted. Ideally, the state
would create a new birth certificate that reflects the amended gender, and some
states do this. However, other states simply change the existing birth certificate,
issuing one that shows the previous gender, while others designate on the new birth
certificate that the gender has been changed. These approaches out transgender
people whenever birth certificates are used to verify their identity. NCTEs Proposal: An
transgender communities.

updated version of the Model Law is currently being developed by a group of state officials coordinated by the
National Center for Health Statistics (a part of the CDC). NCTE and allies have been advocating with NCHS to

Specifically,
NCTE has suggested that NCHS make three changes in its revisions of the Model
Law based on approaches developed by some states and federal agencies. The
revised Model Law should allow people to change the sex designation on their birth
certificate by submitting the required documentation directly to the vital statistics
agency, rather than requiring a court proceeding . This will eliminate the unnecessary costs and
change this outdated and restrictive policy about amending birth certificate sex designation.

other obstacles sometimes associated with going through the state court systems. The revised Model Law should
not require proof of specific medical procedures in order to amend birth certificates. Instead, the Model Law should
reflect contemporary standards of care, and require only that an individuals physician certify that the individual has
completed the treatment the physician deems necessary to achieve gender transition. This change would recognize
that different people have different medical needs, and avoid disclosure of any confidential medical information.
The revised Model Law should make clear that a new birth certificate should be issued after an individual presents
the proper documentation, rather than a birth certificate that shows the original gender designation or states that

These recommendations reflect a growing trend in state and

federal policies. The Department of State modernized its policy on passports in 2009, and the policy for
the gender has been changed.

Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, which are federal birth certificates for U.S. citizens born outside of the U.S., also
no longer requires proof of surgery. Recent legislation in Vermont adopted the same approach for that states birth
certificates, and a similar bill is being considered in California. NCTE will continue to advocate for these changes in

Ensuring that transgender

people are able to change their identity documents to reflect their gender identity is
a major priority for NCTE.
the new Model Law, and support the work of activists at the state level.

Human Rights NB-_Can be used for any gender cp

The net benefit is human rightsnot specifying gender allows trans people
the basic human rights of recognition that cisgender people arent subject
to.
Cray and Harrison, 12- (Andrew Cray is a Research Associate for LGBT Progress at the Center for
American Progress. Jack Harrison is Manager of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) ID
Accurately Reflecting Ones Gender Identity Is a Human Right Center for American Progress, December 18, 2012
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/12/18/48367/id-accurately-reflecting-ones-genderidentity-is-a-human-right/ //droneofark
This past week our nation joined others around the globe in celebrating International Human Rights Day, which
marked the 64th anniversary of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, signed on December 10, 1948. This
document declares that inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights are the foundation for a just, peaceful,

Decades later these principles continue to guide human rights policies

established around the world, acting as a foundation for the evolving global
understanding of what it means to acknowledge the equality of all people.
Transgender people, however, continue struggling to attain this innate right to
dignified treatment and equality. As the Council of Europes Commissioner for Human Rights has stated,
It is clear that many transgender persons do not fully enjoy their fundamental
rights both at the level of legal guarantees and that of everyday life. One way in
which transgender people have struggled is in accessing identity documents that
provide legal recognition of their gender identities. The failure of governments to
acknowledge the gender identities of all people represents a rejection of the
fundamental rights of self-determination, dignity, and freedom. Moving forward as a global
community, it is essential that all people transgender or notbe given access to official
documents that accurately reflect each individuals gender identity and that respect
the rights belonging to each of us as humans. The daily importance of identity documents Having
access to identity documents is important because of the very reason they are taken for granted: They are an
integral part of daily life in most cultures. Identity documents are needed for many
activities of daily lifeworking, voting, traveling, accessing government institutions, and proving that one is
who one claims to be. Yet for many transgender people, accessing this basic proof of
identity is out of reach, pushing them further into the margins of society . Historically,
many obstacles have been placed in the way of obtaining accurate ID. For many
and free world.

transgender people, these financial, medical, and legal barriers are impossible requirements to satisfy. Adding an
additional layer of complexity to this landscape is the wide variety of identity requirements that citizens are

In the United States alone, for example, most people

need consistent access to accurate birth certificates, drivers licenses, passports,
and social security cards. The requirements for these documents are set by different
levels of governmentboth federal and stateoften require different standards for
amending the information they reflect, and utilize different administrative processes
for amendment. The two most common forms of identity documents used by people across the globe,
required to have in many countries.

however, are birth certificates and passports. There is currently no international standard for verifying or amending
the information contained on birth certificates. Moreover, the standards that are in place are set by each nation or
by sub-jurisdictions within that nation. Similarly, standards for passport documentation are set at the national level.
Passports, however, are subject to a foundational set of international standards established by the International
Civil Aviation Organization. The standards set by this organization dictate that passports must include an individual
travelers name, date of birth, nationality, and sex. In the sex field, the standards dictate that permissible options
are M for male, F for female, or X for unspecified gender. Countries, therefore, are given significant leeway to
establish policies that affirm the identities of transgender and gender nonconforming citizens, and this

flexibility

should be exercised in a way that protects the human rights of the diverse people in
each nation. Transgender people face significant consequences from policies
preventing access to accurate identification When a government agency is unwilling to issue
identification that reflects a persons identity, they are making a value judgment on the legitimacy of that identity

being forced to live, move, and

contribute in society without accurate, updated identification have impacts for
transgender people that go far beyond an administrative lack of access. Presenting
inaccurate identification all too often becomes a trigger for various forms of abuse
and discrimination. Transgender people who may otherwise move through the world undetected by those
and, as an extension, on an individuals right to citizenship. Yet

who would discriminate against them are often outed by an old gender marker, an old name, or an old
photograph. The results of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, conducted by the National Center for
Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, reveal how common these outcomes are in the
United States. Forty percent of respondents who reported presenting ID that did not match their gender identity
experienced harassment3 percent were physically assaulted and 15 percent were asked to leave the premises

Furthermore, those respondents who were unable to

update their drivers licenses reported much higher rates of discrimination in hiring
and housing. Even when antitransgender bias is not specifically at play, a perceived
mismatch between an individual and the information on a presented ID can trigger
heightened scrutiny and create barriers to accessing services and spaces. This has
where the ID had been presented.

been the case for many transgender voters in the United States. Leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Jody
Herman, Peter J. Cooper public policy fellow at the Williams Institute at the University of Los Angeles School of Law,
estimated that as many as 25,000 transgender voters in states with strict photo ID voter requirements could be
disenfranchised, not just because of antitransgender bias but also because they simply may not have appeared to

Transgender people are frequently subjected to excessive

requirements to access accurate identity documents Many countries impose
restrictive standards that require individuals seeking recognition of their gender to
undergo unnecessary or unwanted medical procedures . In other countries, transgender people
be the person on their ID.

may be barred in some situations from changing their identity documents to accurately reflect their gender. And
some places, including some jurisdictions in the United States, bar transgender people from changing their legally
recognized gender under any circumstances. These are the harsh realities felt by transgender people throughout
many parts of the world.

The cp solves the net benefit

Cray and Harrison, 12- (Andrew Cray is a Research Associate for LGBT Progress at the Center for
American Progress. Jack Harrison is Manager of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) ID
Accurately Reflecting Ones Gender Identity Is a Human Right Center for American Progress, December 18, 2012
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/12/18/48367/id-accurately-reflecting-ones-genderidentity-is-a-human-right/ //droneofark

Placing barriers to birth certificate changes, including outright prohibition

U.S. states are permitted to set their own policies for the amendment of birth
certificates, which creates a divided system of policies between state and federal
identification documents. Even more confusing is the wide variation in state standards. First, some
states issue entirely new birth certificates upon amendment, whereas others offer
amended birth certificates, which make it apparent that an individuals gender has
been changed, triggering privacy and safety concerns for many transgender people.
Among those states offering some option for changing the gender marker indicated on a birth certificate ,
standards can range from having no requirement for specific medical treatments to
requirements relating to genital surgery. The result is a system where a person
would be eligible to have their birth certificate amended in one state but deemed
ineligible to do so if they had born in a neighboring state . These arbitrary variations between
United States:

state standards, however, are not the most disconcerting aspect of birth certificate policies in the United States.

Most egregious are the states that refuse to issue amended birth certificates

altogether. Though several states in practice refuse to allow transgender people access to birth certificates that
accurately reflect their gender identity, Tennessee is the only state that has a statute specifically prohibiting the

But regardless of how these policies have

been adopted, the intent and the effect are the same: Transgender people are
specifically and intentionally isolated from the processes available to others to
obtain accurate identity documentation. Thankfully, however, many jurisdictions in
many countries have moved beyond discriminatory policies targeting transgender
people to offer more equitable access to IDs that correspond with an individuals
gender identity.
amendment of birth certificates for transgender people.

**Abolish Race on Birth Certificates CP

Text- The United States federal government should abolish the race
portion of United States birth certificates.
The cp solves for state control and discrimination
Kertzer and Arel, 02- (David Kerzer is the Paul Dupee University Professor of Social Science and
Professor Anthropoligy and Italian Studies at Brown UniversityDominique Arel is Assistant Professor at the Watson
Institute for International Studies at Brown University.) Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National
Census p. 3-4, Cambridge University Press, 2001, print,//droneofark

The emergence of nationalism as a new narrative of political legitimacy required the

identification of the sovereign nation along either legal or cultural criteria, or a
combination of both. The rise of colonialism , based on the denial that the colonized had political
rights, required a clear demarcation between the settlers and the indigenes . The
Others had to be collectively identified . In the United States, the refusal to enfranchise Blacks and
native Americans led to the development of racial categories. Th e categorization of identities became
part and parcel of the legitimating narratives of the national, colonial, and New
World state. States thus became interested in representing their populatio n, at the
aggregate level, along identity criteria. The census, in this respect, emerged as the most visible, and
arguably the most politically important, means by which states statistically depict collective identities. It is by
no means the sole categorizing tool at the states disposal, however. Birth certificates
are often used by states to compile statistics on the basis of identity categories.
These include ethnic nationality (a widespread practice in Eastern Europe); mother tongue, as in Finland and
Quebec (Courbage 1998: 49); and race, in the United States (Snipp 1989: 33). Migration documents have also, in

The Soviet Union, for instance, generated statistics on

migration across Soviet republics according to ethnicity . The US Immigration Service, from
some cases, recorded cultural identities.

1899 to 1920, classified newly arrived immigrants at Ellis Island according to a list of forty-eight races or peoples,

Parallel to the need for

statistical representation was the need for control. In order to establish a monopoly
of the legitimate means of movement (Torpey 2000: 1), states imposed the use of
personal identity documents to distinguish the citizen from the foreigner (Noiriel 1996)
and, in some cases, attempted to control the internal migration of their population
through residency permits and internal passports (Matthews 1993). In a number of cases, such
generally determined by language rather than physical traits (Brown 1996).

identification documents contained an identity category beyond the civic or legal status of the individual: for
example, the Soviet Union, where citizens had their nationality (in the ethnic sense) indicated on their internal
passports (Zaslavsky and Luryi 1979); Rwanda, with Hutu or Tutsi ethnicity (actually called race) appearing in
identity cards (Uvin, this volume); Greece, Turkey, and Israel, with religion recorded in identity cards (Courbage
1997: 114; Goldscheider, this volume) 1 ; and apartheid South Africa, with racial categories inscribed on

The categorization of identities, along culturally

constructed criteria, on individual documents can serve nefarious or well-meaning
purposes. In the United States, a racial category in birth certificates was long used
to discriminate against Blacks and Indians. Following the rigid principle of the one-drop rule,
identification papers (Petersen 1997: 97).

according to which a single Black ancestor, however remote, made one Black, birth certificates were often used in

The rise
of affirmative action, based on the notion that achieving true equality required
special consideration to be given to historically disadvantaged minorities in access
to jobs and education, implied the bureaucratic categorization of minorities. As a
Southern states to bar individuals of racially-mixed ancestry from marrying Whites (Davis 1991: 157).

consequence, particularly in the case of Blacks and Indians, it has meant continuing commitment
to the determination of race according to objective ancestry, as opposed to simple
self-definition. Thus, the Indian Health Service of the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuse to hold that eligible
patients must have a minimum of one-fourth blood quantum, which in practice entails that they must prove that
at least one of their grandparents appeared on tribal enrollments (tribal rolls) of recognized tribes (Snipp 1989: 34).
A similar policy was employed by Nazi Germany to identify both Jews and Germans. In spite of the shrill propaganda
on the physical alienness of Jews, the criterion actually chosen to separate the Jews eventually targeted for

Those with at least

three Jewish grandparents were categorized as Jews. Ancestry, in turn, was
determined by birth certificates issued by religious institutions (Hilberg 1985). At the outset
destruction was a mixture of religion and descent, and not anthropometric measurement.

of World War II, when the Nazi government sought to transfer Germanspeaking populations from the East (Baltics,
Ukraine, Romania) to newly annexed territories from Poland, the question of defining German identity arose. In this
case, religion was not deemed determinative and ethnicity did not appear on birth certificates. In Estonia, where a
liberal minority law in 1925 had established officially recognized ethnic associations, claimants had to show a
certificate, delivered either by their German association or by the Estonian Ministry of the Interior, attesting to their
German ancestry (Institut national de la statistique 1946: 80). 2 Interestingly, since post-war Germany has adopted
a kind of Law of Return, granting automatic citizenship to ethnic Germans from abroad, the issue of legally
documenting ones ethnic German affiliation remains germane today. After apparently relying on the selfdeclaration of applicants during the Cold War, the German state devised a complex questionnaire in the early 1990s
to determine who can be deemed German (Brubaker 1996).

**Abolish Gender on Birth Certificate CP

Text- The United States federal government should abolish the race
portion of United States birth certificates.
The cp solves for state control and discrimination
Kertzer and Arel, 02- (David Kerzer is the Paul Dupee University Professor of Social Science and
Professor Anthropoligy and Italian Studies at Brown UniversityDominique Arel is Assistant Professor at the Watson
Institute for International Studies at Brown University.) Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and Language in National
Census p. 3-4, Cambridge University Press, 2001, print,//droneofark

The emergence of nationalism as a new narrative of political legitimacy required the

identification of the sovereign nation along either legal or cultural criteria, or a
combination of both. The rise of colonialism , based on the denial that the colonized had political
rights, required a clear demarcation between the settlers and the indigenes . The
Others had to be collectively identified . In the United States, the refusal to enfranchise Blacks and
native Americans led to the development of racial categories. Th e categorization of identities became
part and parcel of the legitimating narratives of the national, colonial, and New
World state. States thus became interested in representing their populatio n, at the
aggregate level, along identity criteria. The census, in this respect, emerged as the most visible, and
arguably the most politically important, means by which states statistically depict collective identities. It is by
no means the sole categorizing tool at the states disposal, however. Birth certificates
are often used by states to compile statistics on the basis of identity categories.
These include ethnic nationality (a widespread practice in Eastern Europe); mother tongue, as in Finland and
Quebec (Courbage 1998: 49); and race, in the United States (Snipp 1989: 33). Migration documents have also, in

The Soviet Union, for instance, generated statistics on

migration across Soviet republics according to ethnicity . The US Immigration Service, from
some cases, recorded cultural identities.

1899 to 1920, classified newly arrived immigrants at Ellis Island according to a list of forty-eight races or peoples,

Parallel to the need for

statistical representation was the need for control. In order to establish a monopoly
of the legitimate means of movement (Torpey 2000: 1), states imposed the use of
personal identity documents to distinguish the citizen from the foreigner (Noiriel 1996)
and, in some cases, attempted to control the internal migration of their population
through residency permits and internal passports (Matthews 1993). In a number of cases, such
generally determined by language rather than physical traits (Brown 1996).

identification documents contained an identity category beyond the civic or legal status of the individual: for
example, the Soviet Union, where citizens had their nationality (in the ethnic sense) indicated on their internal
passports (Zaslavsky and Luryi 1979); Rwanda, with Hutu or Tutsi ethnicity (actually called race) appearing in
identity cards (Uvin, this volume); Greece, Turkey, and Israel, with religion recorded in identity cards (Courbage
1997: 114; Goldscheider, this volume) 1 ; and apartheid South Africa, with racial categories inscribed on

The categorization of identities, along culturally

constructed criteria, on individual documents can serve nefarious or well-meaning
purposes. In the United States, a racial category in birth certificates was long used
to discriminate against Blacks and Indians. Following the rigid principle of the one-drop rule,
identification papers (Petersen 1997: 97).

according to which a single Black ancestor, however remote, made one Black, birth certificates were often used in

The rise
of affirmative action, based on the notion that achieving true equality required
special consideration to be given to historically disadvantaged minorities in access
to jobs and education, implied the bureaucratic categorization of minorities. As a
Southern states to bar individuals of racially-mixed ancestry from marrying Whites (Davis 1991: 157).

consequence, particularly in the case of Blacks and Indians, it has meant continuing commitment
to the determination of race according to objective ancestry, as opposed to simple
self-definition. Thus, the Indian Health Service of the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuse to hold that eligible
patients must have a minimum of one-fourth blood quantum, which in practice entails that they must prove that
at least one of their grandparents appeared on tribal enrollments (tribal rolls) of recognized tribes (Snipp 1989: 34).
A similar policy was employed by Nazi Germany to identify both Jews and Germans. In spite of the shrill propaganda
on the physical alienness of Jews, the criterion actually chosen to separate the Jews eventually targeted for

Those with at least

three Jewish grandparents were categorized as Jews. Ancestry, in turn, was
determined by birth certificates issued by religious institutions (Hilberg 1985). At the outset
destruction was a mixture of religion and descent, and not anthropometric measurement.

of World War II, when the Nazi government sought to transfer Germanspeaking populations from the East (Baltics,
Ukraine, Romania) to newly annexed territories from Poland, the question of defining German identity arose. In this
case, religion was not deemed determinative and ethnicity did not appear on birth certificates. In Estonia, where a
liberal minority law in 1925 had established officially recognized ethnic associations, claimants had to show a
certificate, delivered either by their German association or by the Estonian Ministry of the Interior, attesting to their
German ancestry (Institut national de la statistique 1946: 80). 2 Interestingly, since post-war Germany has adopted
a kind of Law of Return, granting automatic citizenship to ethnic Germans from abroad, the issue of legally
documenting ones ethnic German affiliation remains germane today. After apparently relying on the selfdeclaration of applicants during the Cold War, the German state devised a complex questionnaire in the early 1990s
to determine who can be deemed German (Brubaker 1996).

--xt: Solvency
The aff cant take into account the discourse of trans people effected by
effective control of the statethe CP solves this
Spade, 08- (Dean Spade is Spade is assistant professor at the Seattle University School of Law, teaching
administrative law, poverty law, and law and social movements) Documenting Gender p. 806-88, Hastings Law
Journal, Vol. 59:731, March 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1200902 //droneofark

Overall, a detailed examination of the gender classification rules of the United

States exposes the internal contradictions and assumptions that are for the most
part ignored or unrecognized in the numerous administrative contexts where these
rules operate day-to-day. This Article makes the initial intervention of exposing the under-discussed policy
matrix that messily and incoherently defines gender categories in the United States. The analytical insight provided
by examining that rule matrix creates an opportunity to critique its problems and consequences and question the
assumption that gender has more benefits than costs as a category of classification in administrative governance.
Further, it allows us to see at work the production of insecurity and vulnerability for certain populations in the
creation of systems of classification that administer caretaking programs. Because the administration of population
caretaking interventions aimed at creating a healthy population and national security mobilizes and relies upon
ideas of the characteristics of that population, subsequently naturalizing those characteristics such that they
appear as common sense truths rather than political choices, the production of unhealth and insecurity for some

Antidiscrimination discourses that rely on the perpetrator

perspective individualize difference like transgender identity to the victim and
individualize invidious intentions to the perpetrator, making invisible the systemic
conditions producing identity categories from multiple locations. Finally, recognizing
the high stakes of administrative governance identifying it as a key location of
legal production of equality/inequality and distribution of chances at security and
insecurity, health and sickness, life and deathalso enables us to understand the
significance of the administrative nature of the War on Terror as more than a set of
concerns over the accuracy of records and the privacy of individuals . Instead, it might
be an opportunity to understand the key role of administrative governance in forms
of domination that have often been conceptualized through individual
discrimination. Further, it offers a chance to re-imagine political responses to
surveillance and to question whether caretaking functions of the state, such as the
redistribution of wealth through taxes and public benefits, national security, disease
control, and even the remediation of long histories of oppression and exploitation,
require the kinds of data collection that are increasing at a rapid pace in the United
States, or whether they could be better accomplished through other means.
subpopulations is obscured.

Spills over to broader criticism of state categorization

Spade, 08- (Dean Spade is Spade is assistant professor at the Seattle University School of Law, teaching
administrative law, poverty law, and law and social movements) Documenting Gender p. 806-88, Hastings Law
Journal, Vol. 59:731, March 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1200902 //droneofark
Conclusion As the work of Bowker and Star shows us, classification systems operate on the basis of norms that
often appear non-controversial to most people but have significant ethical consequences .

The operation of
administrative governance in the United States, specifically the caretaking
programs that intervene with the aim of health, safety and well-being for the
population, require data collection that forms a basis of identity surveillance. This
identity data, gathered by disparate agencies for varying purposes, is being mobilized in new ways by War on Terror

The categories of classification used in

this data collection are so ubiquitous in culture and law that rulemakers, judges,
innovations aimed at increasing immigration enforcement.

scholars, and advocates often fail to question their use and frequently presume
their coherence and stability. Only those whose lives are subject to the conflicts
between these rules and to the social and economic exclusion that results from not
being legible in a ubiquitous classification system tend to be aware of the issues.
Looking at the role of administrative governance in the modern state, the history of population-level intervention,
and the creation of sub-populations that necessarily results from classification processes central to standardization

Even as we watch the ongoing process of privatization

and deregulation in many realms advocated as reducing government intervention,
we can see that a moment of steady expansion of state powers, often under the law and
order or anti-terrorism rubric, is at hand.388 In this moment, it is useful to broadly and critically
examine administrative governance as a productive process where the conditions of
existence of individuals and groups are determined by fundamental assumptions
and norms of the administrative state . It is imperative to neither uncritically
embrace state caretaking projects as requiring growing levels of surveillance for
purposes of security and health, nor to turn to individual privacy rhetoric
wholeheartedly and valorize an end to government data collection. Recent political
debates show that the pro-surveillance or antisurveillance position can be mobilized
on either side of equality struggles articulated by marginalized groups . In some instances
provides space to ask key questions.

we see a push for colorblind governance opposed by groups interested in remedying racial inequality.389 In

we see the privacy argument articulated to stop race-based data collection

and aggregation motivated by concerning theories of racial difference .390 In some
others

instances we see advocates seeking reduced data collection about HIV status because of surveillance concerns.391
In others, advocates push for increased data collection seeking the distribution of resources to communities

we can see privacy arguments

and the demand for data articulated on both sides of a political divide about
domination.393 This dilemma points to a need to develop analysis about the
intertwined surveillance and caretaking roles of the state that can account for our
frequently conflicting beliefs about data collection. Can we imagine a state that
meets demands for caretaking without surveillance , for example by providing public benefits
severely impacted by HIV.392 In these examples and many others,

without a recordkeeping system to determine who has received a distribution of benefits? Can we imagine public

Would this resolve

surveillance issues or could regional surveillance or other markers on data expose
the same concerns? How might entire notions of property, criminality, individuality and collectivity have to
health programs that collect health data without any link to individual identities?

be restructured in order to conceptualize a reduced reliance on data collection and identity verification?

Exploring these questions may be initial steps in analyzing the complex role of data
collection in state formation and assessing the political possibilities at hand for
rethinking current data collection and standardization practices. Reaching out to
these more distant visions of relations between caretaking and surveillance makes
possible new understandings of the politics of current controversies about data
collection and classification, and may enhance the potential to envision strategic
approaches to change.

at: Permutation
Perm cant solvethe census data collected is actually used to help
communities at large
Spade, 08- (Dean Spade is Spade is assistant professor at the Seattle University School of Law, teaching
administrative law, poverty law, and law and social movements) Documenting Gender p. 806-88, Hastings Law
Journal, Vol. 59:731, March 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1200902 //droneofark

Another area where compelling reasons for the continued use of gender
classification exists is with respect to affirmative action and other programs focused
on remedying the long-term effects of oppression of women and transgender
people. Here, again, we can see parallels to controversies that have occurred regarding the use of other
contested identity categories. In the context of race, the debates that occurred regarding
putting a multiracial category on the U.S. Census are instructive .375 Those
discussions focused on the proposal that a multiracial category would lead to
more accurate data, because the Census requirement that people pick a single
racial category obscured the fact that many people are multi-racial .376 Opponents of
the proposal argued that while it is true that many people are multi-racial, certain
groups would be undercounted if their identity categories were emptied by more
people choosing multi-racial rather than the race category they would have
previously chosen.377 This argument was especially made with regard to people of African ancestry in the
United States378 While requiring multi-racial people with African heritage to only identify that heritage in their
identification on the Census mirrored the racist rule of hypodescent also known as the one drop rule, establishing
a multiracial category would likely drastically reduce the number of people identifying as African-American.379

Opponents argued that because much discrimination and exclusion has occurred
and continues to occur through the rule of hypodescent, with historical and present
day racism regarding people through the one-drop lens, eliminating the ability to
identify people of African descent specifically would impede the ability to use
Census data to understand the conditions in that population and formulate
appropriate policies related to redistribution and remediation .380 Thus, even though
the racial categories formulated by the rule of hypodescent do not reflect a
scientifically verifiable classification that would be desirable in many other areas of
government identity classification, they still operate on individuals and communities
impacted by racism. Tools like Census data that are used to evaluate policies aimed
at remedying discrimination and exclusion and redistributing government services
and support, therefore, need to measure race in ways that do not obscure the
existence of communities and issues constituted around those categories . Similarly, we
might suggest that in programs collecting data for purposes of evaluating efforts to
remedy the impact of long-term discrimination and exclusion of women and
transgender people collecting data about gender might be useful. Such data
collection could be undertaken with an understanding that what is being measured
is the impact of social processes of gender production that result in discrimination
and exclusion in contexts where systemic sexism and transphobia exist. Again, as in the
health context, the gender categories used in such collection might not simply be male and female depending

If a deeper question were asked, one that addressed

whether gender data was really necessary, and if so what aspect of gender data
should be collected and how, more nuanced and effective policymaking might
result. This is not an argument for a simplistically gender-blind government, but
rather for a shift toward a more critical view of the use of gender data in
on the kind of problems being assessed.

government recordkeeping. If collecting data on gender had to be justified by a close connection to

institutional purposes, and false assumptions about the use of gender data to verify identity fell by the wayside,

the use of this data could have less unintended negative consequences for both
individuals and institutions. The confusion currently being caused by batch checking procedures aimed at
immigration enforcement and terrorism prevention exposes the incoherency of gender classification, allowing
us to consider putting an end to the administrative attempts to make gender a
stable marker of identity verification and a logical way of dividing and managing the
population when it clearly does not achieve either purpose consistently . It is worth noting
that this underlying question about the significance of gender classification has also played an important role in
discrimination law. The use of intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny for laws and policies distinguishing
people on the basis of gender,381 controversies about sex as a bona fide occupational qualification,382 and
debates about whether pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination383 all bear a relation to the

Does it relate to a meaningful

difference among humans that can be used as a legitimate basis for differential
treatment in some instances?384 Or is it a classification arising from a system of
dominance, such that differential treatment on this basis should be viewed under
serious suspicion of discrimination? The jurisprudence related to gendered dress codes also relates to
fundamental concern over what kind of classification sex represents.

these questions,385 asking courts to determine whether cultural expectations about gendered appearances in
certain industries are reasonable professional standards or illegal limitations on the lives of individuals based on
discriminatory stereotypes. Similarly, the Title VII cases where courts have wrestled with whether discrimination
against transgender people is prohibited by Title VII require a determination of basic understandings of how the law
views gender classification.386 Are transgender people who are fired being impermissibly discriminated against
because of failure to live up to a stereotype about masculinity or femininity,387 or is their gender expression so far

Many of the
fundamental tensions in sex discrimination law have related to these questions
about how the law views sex as a categorywhether it is real enough to be a
legitimate basis of differential treatment or whether we see it primarily as a set of
social norms arising out of a system of domination . While these issues are too numerous to treat
here, the insight into the instability of gender provided by the examination of the
gender reclassification rule matrix might also be a helpful consideration in the
resolution of these questions.
outside cultural norms that it is beyond the ambit of what Title VII exists to protect?

Cyber/Internet CPs

**Cyber-Vulnerability CP
The United States federal government should establish a
cyber-vulnerability purchasing program.
The CP solves cyber-crime and internet governance
Brake 2015 (Benjamin [International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations]; The Bug Trade; Apr 22; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-0422/bug-trade; kdf)
To ensure their efforts to control this industry succeed, cyber officials should pay close attention to the shifting

the
purchasing power of the United States can do much to restructure the market for
software vulnerabilities. By becoming its largest customer, the United States can make the licit
market more attractive and lower the quality of tools available to cybercriminals.
According to NSS Labs, a vulnerability purchasing program would reduce economic losses
resulting from cybercrime by at least ten percent. It would also increase the talent
pool of skilled information security researchers and degrade the ability of foreign
intelligence agencies to acquire sophisticated exploits or attract talented researchers. In
addition, the likelihood of a catastrophic attack on critical U.S. infrastructure would be
diminished if individuals had an incentive to look for and sell flaws to reputable vendors
or the U.S. government (provided that U.S. agencies maintain an effective process to responsibly disclose a
vast majority of the bugs to the public ). Without such a program, the market for vulnerabilities
could become a bazaar for a wide array of private purchasers with no interest in public disclosure of the
economics of the software vulnerabilities market. As cyber security specialist Dan Geer proposed last year,

bugs. The United States cannot, though, expect to buy its way out of the problem entirely. A newly announced study
from researchers from MIT, Harvard, and the information security firm HackerOne maintains that while bug bounties
are an effective tool, the market is not driven by price alone. For a more enduring solution that avoids the danger of
drawing too much attention to finding bugs and not enough to fixing them, officials and software developers must
also work to encourage the development of automated solutions for vulnerability discovery. Thomas Schelling

unsavory markets always offer

policymakers several options to restructure the market: increasing the legal
competition, relaxing prohibitions, or selective enforcement . There are no easy choices when
observed in his work on economics and criminal enterprise that

it comes to dealing with the problem of commercial hacking, but at least there are choices. Private hacking firms

the United States can affect the

market in which these firms operate . A bug-bounty program led by the United
States can drive up their costs of doing business, as well as the costs to U.S.
adversaries in cyberspace. It may, as Dan Geer noted, be the cheapest win we will ever get.
will inevitably thrive as encryption becomes more ubiquitous, but

--xt Solves internet freedom (affs that read Kehl)

The CP discloses vulnerabilities which is sufficient to solve
internet freedom their author
Kehl et al 2014 (Danielle Kehl is a Policy Analyst at New Americas Open
Technology Institute (OTI). Kevin Bankston is the Policy Director at OTI, Robyn
Greene is a Policy Counsel at OTI, and Robert Morgus is a Research Associate at OTI;
Surveillance Costs: The NSAs Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom &
Cybersecurity; Jul 2014;
https://www.newamerica.org/downloads/Surveilance_Costs_Final.pdf; kdf)
The NSAs apparent stockpiling of security vulnerabilities in widely-used hardware
and software products (rather than responsibly disclosing them to vendors so that they may be patched)
threatens cybersecurity writ large. The U.S. government needs to establish a
clear and consistent policy of disclosing vulnerabilities to vendors by
default. To the extent such a policy allows vulnerability stockpiling at all, it must explicitly define when, under
what circumstances, and for how long the government may delay disclosure, if ever. A central tenet of this policy
should be that if the U.S. government holds onto security vulnerabilities for future exploitation at all, it should only
do so in extraordinarily rare cases, such as where there are no other legitimate means to access information that is
necessary to protect against an immediate national security threat. It is critical that any such policy authorizing the
stockpiling of vulnerabilities spell out in explicit and precise terms the limited circumstances that would qualify for
such an exception, as well as specific guidelines for when and how vendors should be informed of the flaw after it

In a world of great cybersecurity

risk public safety and national security are too critical to take risks and leave
vulnerabilities unreported and unpatched Law enforcement should always err on
the side of caution in deciding whether to refrain from informing a vendor of a
vulnerability. Any policy short of full and immediate reporting is simply inadequate.364 Similarly,
has been used for that limited purpose As Bellovin et al. write,

Recommendation #30 from the Presidents Review Group recommends that US policy should generally move to
ensure that Zero Days are quickly blocked, so that the underlying vulnerabilities are patched on US Government
and other networks, carving out an exception for rare instances when US policy may briefly authorize using a
Zero Day for high priority intelligence collection, following senior, interagency review involving all appropriate
departments.365 Additionally, any decision not to disclose a vulnerability should be subject to a rigorous review
process. The Presidents Review Group recommends the creation of an interagency process to regularly review the
activities of the US government regarding attacks that exploit a previously unknown vulnerability in a computer
application or system.366 To the extent such a Vulnerabilities Equities Process already exists as the
Administration now claims, the government must be much more transparent about its operation and the standards
under which it operates, in order to reassure users of American hardware and software products that both industry
and government are fully dedicated ensuring the security of those products.

--xt Regulation solves

Regulating the sale of the info drives R&R and stops cybercrime
Brake 2015 (Benjamin [International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations]; The Bug Trade; Apr 22; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-0422/bug-trade; kdf)
The United Kingdom isnt the only country concerned about the rising abuse of spyware. As early as 2012, Dutch EU

Several
dozen nations, including the United States, Canada, and all EU member states, have since pledged to
introduce export controls on surveillance software and new export control procedures are
parliament member Marietje Schaake spearheaded a push for a ban on exports of surveillance software.

beginning to evolve in countries where many of these firms are headquartered, including Germany, Italy, and

But the multilateral framework used to contain and control the trad ea legacy
address the challenge
of this new digital industry alone. Countries will still be left with the question of how
to regulate this market without pushing it underground, driving spyware developers into more
permissive jurisdictions, or imposing unnecessary restrictions that stymie commercial and
scientific development. SOFT LAW FOR SOFTWARE In late 2013, 41 countries pledged under the Wassenaar
France.

regime originally developed to curb arms proliferation in a bipolar world cannot

Arrangement to adopt export controls for the types of surveillance tools HackingTeam and other firms were selling
around the world. Wassenaar is the successor to a Cold War effort aimed at preventing the sale of conventional
military and dual-use capabilities to the Soviet bloc. As the political scientists Kenneth Abbott and Duncan Snidal
pointed out soon after its adoption, Wassenaar was already hard enough to enforce with physical goods. Wassenaar
had too many members and too little consensus. It was not directed at a common enemy, and the costs of export
bans fell unevenly across countries. Finally, some states were more technically prepared than others to oversee an
effective control system. Digital goods like spyware will be all the more challenging to control. In the case of

the size and expertise of the leading firms make them difficult to
control through a treaty. Unlike the middle aged, Ph.D. wielding engineers at Lockheed Martin that develop
hacking products,

advanced fighter jets, software developers that create malware are often young, some may be detached from the
community, and many are willing to move around frequentlymuch like the hacking firms that recruit them. There

Traditional defense industries

use assembly lines, machine tools, and other types of manufacturing infrastructure
that are difficult and costly to duplicate abroad; hackers' most valuable products are
often computer code, which can go wherever they go . With only a few dozen employees, firms
is also little equipment that can be physically monitored or controlled.

like HackingTeam will have a relatively easy time recruiting or luring their best and brightest to countries with less
oversight over the development and distribution of spyware. European officials have already warned that Vupen, a
French vendor of exclusive zero-day exploits, may be moving its offices out of the EU due to tightening export
control policies.

--xt Government purchasing good

The CP solves crime and is sound economics
Dunn 2014 (John; Governments urged to set up global bounty system to buy
security vulnerabilities; Jan 7; www.techworld.com/news/security/governmentsurged-set-up-global-bounty-system-buy-security-vulnerabilities-3495978/; kdf)
The criminal market for software vulnerabilities is now so sophisticated and
dangerous that governments should consider setting up a global programme to
purchase flaws before they fall into the wrong hands, a researcher has argued. Last month Dr Stefan Frei of
NSS Labs calculated that criminals probably had access to around 100 zero-day software flaws known only to them
at any moment in time, which represented a huge security risk to organisations, governments and consumers alike.
In a follow-up report before Christmas Frei and co-author Francisco Artes suggested that the level of insecurity was
now far beyond what could be mopped up by commercial software bounty programmes such as those run by
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo or specialist firms such as HP TippingPoint. Flaws could take months to discover and
possibly years to patch across the worlds population of PCs, leaving criminals free to exploit them more or less at
will. With the uncosted economic and social toll rising and the industry no nearer producing secure software or
accepting liability for its effects, the time had come for governments to resort to more drastic measures, Frei said.
Meanwhile a lucrative market has developed for flaws with security disclosures that depended on the efforts of a
small population of security researchers, a worrying minority of whom were willing to sell flaws to the highest
bidder, often criminals. One solution would be a fully-fledged International Vulnerability Purchase Program (IVPP),

The main advantage of this

approach is that it could include software products not currently covered by bounty
programs while also paying market rates high enough to encourage more security
research as a whole. Even paying above market rates as high as $150,000 (100,000) per
flaw - the cost of purchasing all vulnerabilities in a given year, and at competitive
prices, is remarkably low compared to the losses that are estimated to occur as a
result of cybercrime, or the economic output of major countries, or the revenue of
the software industry for the same time period, wrote Frei. If such a program had purchased
which would seek to purchase serious flaws before criminals got hold of them.

every known flaw during 2012, he calculated that the bounty costs would still only represent only 0.3 percent of the

the costs of paying

for all those flaws would be dwarfed by the economic effects of the same flaws once
they are wielded by criminals. The price offered for a specific flaw would depend to some extent on the
revenue of the world software industry, about 0.01 percent of US GDP. Put another way,

financial damage it might cause, a number that would always in theory be higher than the profit criminals could
make from the same vulnerability.

at: Bad economics

Leading study CP is good economics
Frei & Artes 2013 (Stefan and Francisco; International Vulnerability Purchase
Program; https://www.nsslabs.com/sites/default/files/public-report/files/International
%20Vulnerability%20Purchase%20Program%20%28IVPP%29-1.pdf; kdf)
the global economy increasingly has come to rely on
information systems, and yet society remains in the early phases of adapting to the
related opportunities and threats. Criminals, however, are fast adopters (as with any new
technology), and worldwide financial losses occurring as a result of cyber crime are
estimated in the billions of dollars per year. The continued discovery of new vulnerabilities in
Over the past few decades,

software and their subsequent abuse by cyber criminals is the root cause of a considerable portion of the losses

Every exploitable security vulnerability in the possession of cyber

criminals (particularly those vulnerabilities that affect popular products) subsequently induces
significant direct and indirect losses for users and for society as a whole. There is no
indication that the status quo will change any time soon , not least because software
experienced by society.

manufacturers have yet to produce secure software and, since they do not bear the costs and consequences of the
vulnerabilities within their products, there is little to indicate that they ever will. Experience has shown that
traditional approaches based on more of the same do not deliver better overall security. The question to ask is:
How much are those that bear the costs willing to pay to reduce their losses incurred as a result of cyber crime? I t

is time to examine the economics of depriving cyber criminals access to new

vulnerabilities through the systematic purchase of all vulnerabilities discovered at or
above black market prices. By comparing the total losses occurring as a result of
cyber crime against the costs involved in purchasing all vulnerabilities a compelling
case is made for a centralized vulnerability purchase program . NSS Labs has discovered that
the cost of purchasing all of the vulnerabilities of a given software vendor is minimal
when compared with that vendors revenue for the same period of time . Further, the cost
of purchasing all of the vulnerabilities for all of the vendors is minimal when weighed against the expected overall

NSS data reveals that it is economically

viable for governments to make largescale purchases of vulnerabilities to reduce
losses, establish proper incentives, provide transparency, and transfer costs to the
appropriate parties.
reduction in losses incurred as a result of cyber crime.

**Cybersecurity Treaty 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should establish
and ratify an international cybersecurity treaty.
Treaties with other countries prevents miscalc and
intentionally targeting other countries
Mueller 14Benjamin is the Stonex PhD scholar in international relations at the London
School of Economics. His report, The Laws of War in the Era of Cyber conflict, is published by
LSE IDEAS (Why we need a cyberwar treaty June 2, 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/we-need-cyberwar-treaty)//JLee

There is no regulation
whatsoever of war in cyberspace unlike conventional forms of battle, which are
subject to an extensive set of international treaty laws signed and respected by
the vast majority of the world's states. The laws of armed conflict regulate when a nation state
may legally use military force against another state, and what means it may use to do so.
Official military doctrine in many countries is that these laws apply to cyberspace as
they do to all other domains of warfare. But cyberspace is unlike any of these domains. Attacks can
One decisive act of statesmanship could drastically turn this picture around.

take place from someone's desk, thousands of miles removed. The very meaning of the word "attack" is unclear: is
any unauthorised digital incursion into another state's networks an offensive attack? Need it bring about destructive

An international treaty on cyberwar must clarify the

meaning of cyber attack, set out permissible responses, and include an obligation
for states to assist one another in the investigation of digital crimes . A nation's failure to
cooperate in the aftermath of a cyber incident must imply a degree of culpability. Digital industrial
espionage falls under the World Trade Organisation, which ought to take steps to
outlaw what is an anti-competitive tactic, and expand the scope of its dispute settlement
mechanism to include such behaviour. Some argue that because attributing acts of cyber hostility is so difficult,
a treaty would be a fool's errand. In fact, anonymity on the internet is impossible by
definition: all internet traffic consists of electronically fired communication impulses
which are traceable (as Mandiant's report shows). Attacks can be analysed using a mixture
of digital forensics and traditional investigative methods. A cyberwar treaty will
bring about three profound benefits. First, militaries will no longer have to
perpetuate a boundless arms race in a domain that is currently unconstrained by rules and
consequences to count as one?

conventions: expectations of military behaviour in cyberspace will be anchored in norms (just as most states do not

Second, setting out response

structures to cyber attacks will finally establish a modicum of deterrence in
cyberspace. Third, once the military applications of cyberspace become more
predictable, states can devote more effort to cross-border law enforcement cooperation in the pursuit of cyber
have to fear attack by nuclear, chemical or biological weapons).

criminals.

--xt Solves privacy and internet

CP solves threatsdoesnt violate privacy, allows free
information flow
Mueller 14Benjamin is the Stonex PhD scholar in international relations at the London
School of Economics. His report, The Laws of War in the Era of Cyber conflict, is published by
LSE IDEAS (The laws of war and cyberspace on the need for a treaty concerning cyber
conflict June 2014
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SU14_2_Cyberwarfare.pdf)//JLee

The overall aim is to move the international community of states into a position
where cyber-related cross-border cooperation of law enforcement is a matter of routine,
regulated by treaty. An accord on cyber war is needed to clarify the definitions of LOAC in cyberspace,
helping to bring clarity into what is currently an underregulated domain of warfare. By creating a degree of
certainty as regards permissible state behaviour in cyberspace , governments can step away
from the risky game of maximising cyber operations without breaching the armed attack threshold, and focus on

An
institutionalised basis for international cooperation on cyber crime would make life
harder for cyber criminals. As an added benefit, a treaty on cyber crime would lessen the
attribution dilemma, since non-cooperation by a state can then be seen an
indication of a degree of state responsibility for a cyber incident .45 In practical terms, it is
up to states to initiate the treaty process. The Budapest Convention provides a solid basis
for combating cyber crime; it could be amended as per the points above and an effort launched to bring
the scourge of cyber criminality, which is undermining confidence in the Internet as a whole.

on board more signatories. The UN Disarmament & International Security Committee appears to be the most
appropriate forum for talks to commence on a cyber war treaty. The incentive structure for states to engage in such
a process is easily framed in the game theory terms that are familiar to students of bargaining and cooperation
under anarchy.46 The simplest explanatory analogy is the Prisoners Dilemma: it is in the interest of all states if
cyberspace becomes a more ordered military domain, by anchoring expectations and introducing a degree of
certainty for governments. It is in the private interest of each state to defect from this regime and secure the

To avoid all states from following their private

interest and defecting, it is necessary to monitor compliance, ideally through an
institution charged with this task (which generates what Axelrod and Keohane call the shadow of the
benefits of unrestrained cyber warfare on its own.

future). Curiously, although international law has no formal enforcement mechanism, states adherence to it, as
has been noted, is widespread and consistent. The reasons are likely to be a mixture of enlightened self-interest in
an ordered international community, legitimacy (both of international law and of the compliant state in the eyes of
its population as well as the international community) and the norms of socialisation that have built up over the
past century as international law grew in depth and breadth.47 The main hurdle facing this scheme is that states
fear giving up a military advantage a fear that is nullified if all states sign up to the treaty and the worry that
regulating a decentralised, non-hierarchical network like cyberspace is antithetical to its fundamental purpose.

concerns have been voiced that regulating cyberspace will generate

momentum for those states that seek to exert censorship and state control over the
Internet.48 The idea that information is free, with the Internet as the medium to decentralise the global
Specifically,

flow of knowledge and empower citizens across the globe, is indeed appealing to those who believe in freedom of

At the same time, it is easy to romanticise

this point. Whether or not citizens enjoy a free web still depends first and foremost
on the domestic legal situation in which they find themselves. A state intent on censoring the
Internet can do so easily, with or without a treaty on cyber war. What advocates for an open
speech as a fundamental force for good in the world.

Internet seem to miss is that a key ingredient of the web is trust between the disparate nodes and actors in the
network. A gradual militarisation of cyberspace will hamper cyberspaces effectiveness as a tool for commercial and

Moreover, the arms race dynamic that can develop absent a treaty on
cyber war is a boon to cybercriminals, who, if left unchecked, will make e-commerce
an increasingly slow, costly and cumbersome affair. That is in nobodys interest.
social exchange.

Japan Solvency
Japan is totally on-board
Bennett 15Cory is a Cybersecurity reporter for The Hill. He was the Assistant Editor at Warren
Communications News covering the Federal Trade Commission and Internet privacy/surveillance regulations and
legislation (US, Japan near cyber defense agreement April 8, 2015 http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/238264us-japan-near-cyber-defense-agreement)//JLee

The U.S. and Japan are close to striking a bargain on bilateral defense
rules that would bolster joint efforts to defend cyberspace. The move comes amid growing hacking
threats from Asian power China and the reclusive North Korea. The agreement will update a standing
defense alliance that has not been revisited since 1997 Japanese Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani said at a
press conference Wednesday with his U.S. counterpart, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. The revised defense
guidelines will give us the opportunity to extend [the alliances] reach into new
domains like space and cyber, said Carter, who is making his first trip to Asia since being installed as
head of the Pentagon. Cybersecurity, Nakatani said, has become a common security issue for both nations. The
press conference was short on specifics regarding the cyber arrangement . The rules are
expected to be finalized when Japan's prime minister visits President Obama in Washington
later this month. Cybersecurity is increasingly dominating geopolitical relationships
across Asia. China has moved to implement a broad set of new cybersecurity rules that would require
companies to implement Beijing-approved encryption and open all source code to government inspection. Japan
and the U.S. have aligned in opposition to the rules, which they argue will unfairly discriminate
against foreign companies who do not want to expose customer data to the Chinese government. Security
experts have widely accused China of hacking many major foreign companies
operating in the region. Elsewhere, North Korea has emerged as a burgeoning cyber power in the region,
launching digital attacks on South Korean nuclear plants and Sony Pictures Entertainment in the U.S., which is

The restructured defense guidelines will help defend against

from these type of cyberattacks, as well as cyberattacks that look to knock out
critical infrastructure. The rules detail how our two governments will continue to work
together around the world and in new domains such as space and cyberspace ... to ensure
owned by Japan-based Sony.

instability

resulting

Japan's peace and security, Carter said. And they will help us respond flexibly to the full scope of challenges we

The world has changed since the U.S. and

Japan last reviewed their guidelines, more than 17 years ago, Nakatani said. During
this time in the areas surrounding Japan, the security situation has become even
more severe, he said. And also in cyberspace and outer space, in these new fields there are various
face, both in the Asia Pacific and around the globe.

issues that we need to respond to.

China Solvency
CP Solvesa treaty would prevent espionage against China and solve
miscalc
AP 14Associated Press (US seeks resumption of cyber talks with China June 27, 2014
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/27/us-seeks-resumption-of-cyber-talks-with-china.html)//JLee

The United States next month will urge China to resume discussions on cybersecurity that
were suspended abruptly after the U.S. charged five Chinese military officers with hacking
into U.S. companies to steal trade secrets, a U.S. official said Thursday. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel
Russel told The Associated Press the U.S. would push for a resumption of the cyber working
group when Cabinet-level officials of both sides meet at the annual U.S.-China Security and Economic Dialogue in
Beijing in the second week of July. After the indictments against the five officer s were unsealed in
May, Beijing pulled the plug on the group . It had been set up a year ago in what Washington viewed at
the time as a diplomatic coup after President Barack Obama and China's President Xi Jinping held a summit in

Those ties have come

under growing strain, also because of China's assertive actions in the disputed South and East China seas.
Russel, the top U.S. diplomat for East Asia, reiterated those concerns Thursday, saying the U.S. views it as
essential that China show greater restraint and use diplomacy to manage its
differences on territorial issues. Asian nations, particularly treaty allies like Japan and the
Philippines, look to the U.S. to counter China's increasingly muscular actions, but some in
California, aiming to set relations between the two global powers on a positive track.

the region have voiced doubts about whether the second-term Obama administration can follow through on its

Russel
said Asia remains a strategic U.S. priority , even as Washington considers some form of military
commitment to focus on the Asia-Pacific, because of its preoccupation with the chaos in the Middle East.

action to combat the rapid advances of Sunni militants in Iraq who now straddle the border with Syria. "The fact
that events conspired to demand high-level U.S. attention in the Middle East or elsewhere is simply a fact of life,"

that's made the Asia-Pacific

region a priority for us in security, economic and political terms is unaffected by the
short-term demands of crises here and there. "I have no trouble in enlisting Secretary (of State
John) Kerry's efforts on our agenda in the region ," Russel added, "and that applies to the
president and vice president as well ." Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will lead
the U.S. delegation at the talks in Beijing, which are an annual fixture and viewed as
important in forging a more cooperative relationship with Beijing, notwithstanding current
Russel said. "It's always been thus. The strategic imperative, though,

frictions and China's growing challenge to America's post-World War II military predominance in the Asia-Pacific. The
two sides will discuss issues including turmoil in the Middle East, North Korea's nuclear program and cooperation on
climate change, and the U.S. will raise human rights. They'll also address a slew of economic and trade issues,
including progress on a bilateral investment treaty that China agreed to negotiate in earnest at last year's talks.

While the cyber working group remains on hold , Russel said the U.S. side will raise
concerns over cyber-enabled theft of U.S. corporate data and intellectual property
that the U.S. contends is shared with Chinese state-owned enterprises for commercial
gain. "That's an economic problem as well as a bilateral problem, and that kind of behavior
risks undermining the support for the U.S.-China relationship among the U.S. and international
business community," Russel said. "It's a problem we believe the Chinese must and can address." Although
the revelations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden on U.S. surveillance
tactics have embarrassed Washington - leaving it open to accusations of hypocrisy
when it accuses others of cyber espionage - the Obama administration has taken an increasingly
trenchant stance on intrusions from China. The indictment accused t he Chinese officers of targeting
U.S. makers of nuclear and solar technology, stealing confidential business
information, sensitive trade secrets and internal communications for competitive
advantage. But after the indictments were unsealed, the five men were not placed on a public, international list

China would even entertain a formal request by

the U.S. to extradite the five officers. It has rejected the charges and demanded
they be withdrawn.
of wanted criminals. There is no evidence that

Solvesprevents further tensions with each other

Wroughton et al 6/24Lesley is a staff writer for Reuters. Idrees Ali, Arshad Mohammed, Anna
Yukhananov and Krista Hughes are also staff writers for Reuters (US airs deep concerns over cyber security in
China meetings June 24, 2015 http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/us-airs-deepconcerns/1936630.html)//JLee

The United States said on Tuesday that cyber theft sponsored by the
Chinese government was a major problem and stressed the need to keep Asian sea
WASHINGTON:

lanes open as the world's two biggest economies held annual talks aimed at maintaining working relations in spite
of rising tensions. At the wide-ranging Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington,

both sides

expressed a desire for constructive relations , with China saying the two countries could manage
differences and should avoid confrontation. But tensions over security matters, including cyber
attacks on U.S. government computers that U.S. officials have blamed on Chinese
hackers and China's pursuit of territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea, have threatened to
hamper efforts to deepen economic ties worth US$590 billion in two-way trade last
year. "On cyberspace, in particular, we remain deeply concerned about Chinese
government-sponsored cyber-enabled theft," U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said at the forum,
which has brought together more than 400 Chinese officials and eight U.S. Cabinet secretaries. Lew said the targets
of this hacking were U.S. firms and did not mention recent attacks on computers of the Office of Personnel

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the two sides might not resolve all of
their differences in the meetings, which began on Monday and continue until Wednesday, but
should commit to working on them. "We have to keep at it, day after day after day after day," Biden said. "T his
relationship is just too important. Not only do we depend on it, but the world depends on our
mutual success."China's Vice Premier Liu Yandong said differences could be managed
"as long as our two countries adopt an overall perspective, respect and
accommodate each others core interests."
Management.

China Says Yes

China says yes
Robinson 6/26Teri is an Associate Editor for the SC Magazine. Teri writes many articles about
cybersecurity problems for the SC Magazine. (U.S., China agree to cybersecurity code of conduct June 26, 2015
http://www.scmagazine.com/us-china-summit-talks-turn-to-cybersecurity/article/423175/)//JLee

After a tumultuous couple of years of exchanging accusations and expressing distrust over
cyberespionage and spying most recently with Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Clapper
laying responsibility for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) breaches squarely at the feet of the Chinese

the U.S. and China said they've reached an accord of sorts, a code of conduct for
cybersecurity going forward. The code emerged after a three-day U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue where delegates from the two countries covered the gamut
of topics likely to affect future collaboration and relations. While details of a specific code were
not released, nor did it appear on a 127-item outcomes list, both China's Vice Premier Wang Yang
and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in the fifth round of the meeting's Strategic Security Dialogue
pledged to cooperate on cybersecurity measures. After the close of the meet-up, Kerry told
members of the press that there was not a direct kind of confrontational pushback
on cybersecurity during the talks. Instead, the two countries orchestrated what Kerry called for an honest
discussion, minus finger-pointing and accusations about the problem of cyber theft and whether or not it was
sanctioned by government or whether it was hackers and individuals that the government has the ability to

the U.S. made it crystal clear that that type of

activity is not acceptable, but noted that China also has a very clear interest in
making certain that everybody is behaving by a certain set of standards. Kerry refused to comment
specifically on the breaches at the OPM, which exposed a treasure trove of sensitive information, much of it
prosecute. The Secretary of State said

confidential, because the incident is still being investigated by the FBI and we have not come out with specific
statements from the government. DNI

Clapper didn't show similar restraint, with the Wall Street

Journal reporting that he fingered China as the leading suspect during remarks made an
intelligence conference in Washington. You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did, the Journal
quoted Clapper as saying.

**Online Gambling 1NC

The United States federal government should legalize online
gambling.
The US has set a double-standard on internet freedomonly
repealing UIGEA allows for it on a massive scale
Gardner 2010 (April; Gambling regulations will help Obama's world internet
freedom mandate; Sep 23; www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gamblinglaw/gambling_regulations_will_help_obama_s_world_internet_freedom_mandate_557
52.html; kdf)
Obama gave a speech today in front of the United Nations General Assembly, and his
message was largely one of individual freedom. During the speech, Obama touched on many issues,
President

perhaps the most aggressive of which was having a Palestinian state separate from Israel. Obama spoke of allowing
the Palestinians their own state with the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Obama
acknowledged that this could take a long time, but that the goal could become a reality. During the speech,

Obama spoke about how the Internet should remain free from government
interference everywhere in the world. The freedom to surf the Internet would allow
people all across the globe to research issues and learn from the wide array of news that is
currently found on the Internet. "We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to
make up their own minds," said Obama. "And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the

That statement may have

been much better received had the US not had their own blocks on Internet freedom.
The Internet gambling industry currently is operating as a black market in the US due to the 2006 Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The law is a form of Internet censorship that Representative Barney Frank
rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders."

and other lawmakers have been trying to repeal. In the quest for Internet freedom, the US proclaims themselves as

If the US can place Internet bans on

certain industries, then little could be done to stop other countries from banning
different industries or websites because of their beliefs. For instance, in countries where
leaders, however, the country must be careful with their plea.

religion is unified, there could be bans on any material that the country finds outside the rules of their particular
religion. In other countries, bans could be placed on industries that are run largely by foreign operators. President

Obama took a strong first step today by promoting Internet freedom. The next step
will be making sure the US leads by example , and one area to start would be by lifting the
ban on Internet gambling. The president has laid down the gauntlet, and now it is
time for him to follow his own lead.

--xt Solves internet freedom

CPlan solves internet freedom
Kibbe 4/28/14 (Matt, FreedomWorks, "Coalition Letter: No Federal Ban on Internet Gambling")
We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing to express our deep concerns about the Restoration of Americas Wire
Act (H.R. 4301), which would institute a de facto ban on internet gaming in all 50 states. The legislation is a broad overreach by the
federal government over matters traditionally reserved for the states. H.R. 4301 will reverse current law in many states and

a ban will not stop

online gambling. Prohibiting states from legalizing and regulating the practice only
ensures that it will be pushed back into the shadows where crime can flourish with
little oversight. In this black market, where virtually all sites are operated from abroad, consumers have little to no
protection from predatory behavior. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows
the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet, opening the
door for increased Internet regulation in the future. By banning a select form of Internet commerce ,
the federal government is setting a troubling precedent and providing fodder
to those who would like to see increased Internet regulation in the future. We fear
that H.R. 4301 will begin a dangerous process of internet censorship that will
simultaneously be circumvented by calculated international infringers while
constraining the actions of private individuals and companies in the United States.
drastically increase the federal governments regulatory power. As we have seen in the past,

Current gambling laws gut any and all US cred on internet

freedom
Minton 2011 (Michelle; Fed's online poker shutdown assaults internet freedom;
May 13; www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/05/13/Feds----Online-PokerShutdown-Assaults-Internet-Freedom; kdf)
On April 15, a day now known as Black Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) effectively shut down three

The DOJs heavy-handed prosecution of the

websites, all of which are based abroad, has made a mockery of Americas stated
commitment to Internet freedom. The seizures have also hindered the online
gambling operations in nations where Internet poker is completely lawful and the U.S. government has no
major online poker websites by seizing their domain names.

jurisdiction. Given that the seized poker websites are housed and regulated by foreign nationsPoker Stars is
registered in the Isle of Man, Full Tilt in Ireland, and Absolute Poker in Antiguahow could the U.S. government
unilaterally seize their domain names? The short answer is that all of the sites end in .com. All such domains are
registered in the U.S. and, hence, are subject to U.S. civil forfeiture laws. Author and legal scholar Larry Downes has
critiqued civil asset forfeiture laws on the Technology Liberation Front blog. He argues that the laws are actually
intended to punish suspects before they are convicted. The purpose of forfeiture laws, Downes laments, is to
help prosecutors fit the punishment to the crime, especially when restitution of the victims or of the cost of
prosecution is otherwise unlikely to have a deterrent effect. Domain name seizures often occur without a trial and
often without any warning to the owners, as was the case in Black Fridays seizure of poker domains .

The
governments move has reignited the controversy over U.S. federal agencies using
domain seizures to punish foreign entities allegedly in violation of U.S. laws. While the
DOJ did not technically take down the poker websites, federal agents obtained a court order that compelled
Verisign, the global operator of the .com registry, to reroute the poker sites domain names to a government page
featuring intimidating federal logos notifying users of the seizure. As a result of the seizure, no computer in the
worldeven those in countries where poker is explicitly legalcould access the poker sites via their domain names.
This latest round of seizures follows a series of similar actions taken in recent months by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), which has seized the domain names of dozens of websites alleged to be engaged in copyright
infringement. One such site, the Spain-based Rojadirecta.com, had actually been deemed legal by Spanish courts.
Perhaps in an effort to stem discussion of seizures legality, the DOJ agreed to unfreeze the .com domains for Poker
Stars and Full Tilt to allow players to cash out their accounts and allow foreign gamblers to continue playing on the
sites. In return, the websites were required to promise to prevent American-based customers from playing poker
games for money on their websites. The third major site, Antigua-based Absolute Poker, has reportedly been offered

the same privilege in exchange for agreeing to bar U.S. customers from playing for money. However, Antiguas
finance minister issued a statement last week accusing the U.S. of shutting the sites down in order to stamp out
competition. Online gambling is Antiguas second largest employer after the tourism industry, so it comes as little
surprise that Antigua is considering rejecting DOJs compromise and instead challenging the U.S. governments

It is deeply troubling that the United States, a

country that purports to value individual freedom, has so miserably failed to protect
it when it comes to politically incorrect pursuits like online gambling. In effect, our government
is bullying its own citizens and holding innocent foreign companies hostage. Hopefully,
action before the World Trade Organization (WTO).

the events of Black Friday will focus public attention on the flaws of civil asset forfeiture laws and encourage foreign
nations to stand up to U.S. authorities.

The DOJs war of intimidation may have put a

temporary hold on Internet poker in the United States, but its heavy-handed tactics
should outrage anybody who values freedom and individual rights.

Legalizing online gambling key to internet freedom its a

Trojan horse for widespread regulation
Telford 10/20/14- Erik Telford is senior vice president at the Franklin Center for
Government & Public Integrity, The Hill, October 20, 2014, Ending the cycle of
casino cronyism, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/221124-ending-thecycle-of-casino-cronyism
the fight to ban online gambling , it should give
is focused on federal legislation to ban online gambling outright
stifling their competition before it ever reaches the market. It is a glimpse of crony capitalism in its most
naked form, and represents a very troubling assault on Internet freedom , giving
government a foot in the door for a broader regulatory regime and usurping
our federalist system. The 2011, the Department of Justices position interpretation on Internet gambling
When powerful gaming interest are spearheading
you pause. Their main policy objective

threw the issue to state legislatures--where it should be. Almost immediately, Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey
passed legalizing legislation. The Restoration of Americas Wire Act, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) would prohibit interstate sports betting using wire services, effectively killing online
gambling across the states where its legal. While their pretense is to advance a moral good, this policy would
undermine the free market, encourage crime, and erodes the constitutional concept of states rights. Proponents of
the regulation have brought in political heavyweights to undermine legalized online gambling, including former
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who represents the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, claiming that legalizing
online gambling would promote fraud, addiction, and money laundering. "I think it's going to be very difficult to
work something out, Lincoln said, "I think it's important to put a time-out on this and to stop and think about what
it's going to mean to us as a nation in our economy, to our children and to our society." However, these

problems already exist with black market gambling mostly run from overseas
with profits funding shady and potentially dangerous operations outside the
jurisdiction of state regulation and consumer protections. Alan Feldman, an executive vice
president of MGM notes that online gambling is here, and its been here for a very long time.
Legalizing online gambling would likely see more of a shift from illegal to
legal play instead of funneling customers away from traditional casinos and their trappings. Free market
advocates agree that consumers would enjoy more security were this pursuit made legal. In this black market,

consumers have little to no protection from

predatory behavior. wrote officials of the Institute For Policy Innovation to several congressmen. They then
shared wider concern that Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows
the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet,
opening the door for increased Internet regulation in the future. Just like
Prohibition in the 1920s, banning this vice would actually incentivize criminal
behavior. Those fearful of fraud, child participation, and profits diverted to gangs or
where virtually all sites are operated from abroad,

terrorists should push for legalization in every state to make the industry as
transparent as possible. Legalizing this long-established, multibillion dollar business gets the profits
out of the shadows, expands market opportunities, and puts revenue into the coffers of both legitimate business
and state governments that will benefit.

--xt International Signal

Legalization signals return to internet freedom
Legal Casino 14 Portal for gambling news and articles http://legalcasinous.com/
The United States must change their online gambling laws to show to the other
nations that the time of the disrespect for the international agreements is
ended. One of these agreements is with the European Union. The European Commission has warned USA a long
time ago that their online casino laws violates the economic agreements with the
European union. The actual Obama administration has shown, finally, the good wish to conform with such
agreements. The Representative Barney Frank has been a proponent for years of the online games legalization. He
has tried to oppose to the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) last year, but not in vain. The
Republicans had the control, but now, with the democrats, in the US there is the hope for a new law Internet
Gambling Law. Frank believes that all the citizens of the United States have the right to play for money at the online
casino, in the privacy of their houses.

Internet freedom.

Even some Republicans in past had fought for the

**Internet Federalism CP
The fifty states of the United States should legalize nearly all
online gambling in the United States.
State level regulation allows internet federalism
King, 10 [J.D. candidate 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, B.A.
Middlebury College 2002, ARTICLE: GEOLOCATION AND FEDERALISM ON THE
INTERNET: CUTTING INTERNET GAMBLING'S GORDIAN KNOT, Lexis]
Gambling, like most divisive social issues, is best regulated at the state level. n190 Yet migration of
to the Internet has complicated matters greatly, giving rise to difficult questions as to
which governmental entities are best suited to regulate and what the proper substantive regulatory regime ought to
V. CONCLUSION
gambling

be. The failure of energetic federal and state efforts to prohibit Internet gambling over the past decade suggests that the issue may present a nearly impregnable problem, or as this
Article terms the matter, an Internet gambling Gordian knot. The rise of geolocation technologies in recent years offers a new opportunity to cut through that Gordian knot via a

Geolocation technologies are not perfect. However, when they are

integrated into a federal-state framework in which states choose their own
substantive policies from a limited "menu" of options, these technologies can
dramatically improve the democratic responsiveness of Internet gambling
laws, increase compliance with the rule of law, and internalize the large
and increasing costs associated with prohibition of Internet gambling. Such an
jurisdictionally differentiated regulatory framework for Internet gambling.

approach is not immune to criticism, particularly in terms of its potential impact on the fundamental openness of the Internet in the long-term. In light of the market advantages
associated with jurisdictional differentiation and the need for law to be supreme over code in divisive areas such as Internet gambling, those drawbacks [*75] fail to outweigh the

These conclusions carry implications that go

well beyond the Internet gambling debate. If jurisdictional differentiation is a
normatively superior approach with respect to Internet gambling, then it may
be in other market sectors as well. This consequence, along with the degree to
which technological advances have undermined previous court decisions on
electronic commerce issues, suggests that geolocation technologies may play a
role in enabling federalism on the Internet for years to come.
potential benefits offered by aggressive use of geolocation technologies.

**Internet Freedom Agenda CP

Text: The United States federal government should submit a
review of [the plan] to the Freedom Online Coalition to insure
international standards of internet freedom are being met.
CP solves 100% of case creates an internationally modeled
form of internet freedom, checks the circumvention disad
Kehl et al. 14 [Danielle, Kevin Bankston, Robyn Greene, Rober Morgus July,
2014. Kehl is a Senior policy analyst at New America's Open Technology Institute.
Surveillance Costs: The NSAs Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom &
Cybersecurity. Pdf. 7/13]//kmc
The United States must act immediately to restore the credibility of the
Internet Freedom agenda, lest it become another casualty of the NSAs surveillance programs. As
described in Part IV, various agencies within the U.S. government have taken initial
steps to demonstrate goodwill in this area, particularly through the NTIAs
announcement that it intends to transition stewardship of the IANA functions to a
global multistakeholder organization and the State Departments speech outlining
six principles to guide signals intelligence collection grounded in international
human rights norms. However, it will take a broader effort from across the government to demonstrate that the United States is fully committed to Internet
Freedom, includ- ing firmly establishing the nature of its support for the evolving
multistakeholder system of Internet governance and directly engaging with issues
raised by the NSA surveillance programs in international conversations.
Supporting international norms that in- crease confidence in the security
of online communications and respect for the rights of Internet users all
around the world is integral to restoring U.S. credibility in this area . We have
surveillance programmes that abuse human rights and lack in transparency and ac- countability precisely because
we do not have sufficiently robust, open, and inclusive debates around surveillance and national security pol- icy,

It is time to begin having those

conversations on both a national and an international level, particularly at key
upcoming Internet governance convenings including the 2014 Internet Governance
Forum, the International Telecommunications Unions plenipotentiary meeting, and the upcoming WSIS+10
review process.340 Certainly, the United States will not be able to continue promoting the
Internet Freedom agenda at these meetings without addressing its national security
appa- ratus and the impact of NSA surveillance on individuals around the world.
Rather than being a problem, this presents an opportunity for the U.S. to
assume a leadership role in the promo- tion of better international
standards around surveillance practices. Moreover, the U.S. should take steps to
further internationalize its Internet Freedom efforts writ large and work with foreign
governments to broadly promote democracy and human rights online. In 2011,
Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers of the Center for a New American Security wrote
that the United States should counter the view that Internet Freedom is
merely an American project cooked up in Washington, rather than a notion
rooted in universal human rights... The response to [concerns about the Internet
Freedom agendas ties to U.S. foreign policy should be] to internationalize the
effort.341 Today, more than ever, it is critical that the United States heed this
writes Matthew Shears of the Center for Democracy & Technology.339

advice and take steps to broaden the base of support for the Internet
Freedom agenda. Future meetings and activities of the Freedom Online
Coalition, which the State Department played a key role in convening, will serve as one test of
these efforts as the group attempts to transition from a discussion forum
for like-minded governments into a more ac- tion-oriented coalition. 342 The
United States has the opportunity to urge other member countries to live up to the commitments they made at the
2014 meeting in Tallinn with respect to account- ability, transparency, and other policies ground- ed in human
rights. As Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the President of Estonia, articulated in his remarks at the 2014 meeting, We must
be honest with ourselves and admit that recent developments regarding purported surveillance by the NSA and
similar organisations in different countries make the defense of an open Internet more difficult. That, too, is a
challenge that Freedom Online Coalition must face.343 Outside of the Freedom Online Coalition, but consistent
with its goals, the U.S. can urge both companies and foreign governments to join organizations like the Global
Network Initiative or commit to other voluntary processes that promote the centrality of human rights in the
policymaking process.344

They say yes

DDP 15 [Digital Defenders Partnership, a subset of Freedom Online Coalition. WG
3 Privacy and Transparency Online . https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/howwe-work/working-groups/working-group-3/ 7/14]//kmc
FOC working group (WG) Privacy and Transparency Online focuses on the relationship between
governments and information & communications technology (ICT) companies, with
a particular emphasis on respecting human rights online, including
freedom of expression and privacy. In furtherance of that objective, this group intends to
explore the privacy and transparency practices of governments and companies,
including through requests for user data, content restriction, and network shutdown .
This group will remain mindful of the applicability of key principles from the Tallinn Agreement, such as the rule of
law, collection for a legitimate purpose, non-arbitrariness, and effective oversight, which should guide the
interaction between ICT companies and governments .

The discussion on transparency in the

ICT sector has largely focused on major Internet companies in the United
States, Canada, and Europe. With the proliferation of new laws and
regulations in this area, and the growing range of companies handling
user data and content, this conversation should have a global framework,
applying to governments from all regions and companies from all parts of
the ICT sector. By bringing together governments, companies, civil society
experts, and academics, this WG aims to contribute to the global discussion on
transparency and accountability with respect to ICT relationships by seeking to
provide clarity to the following areas: General understandings of the laws, policies,
and processes through which governments make requests to ICT companies that
may impact privacy. How ICT companies in such countries receive and process government requests. The
implications of these practices for the privacy and freedom of expression of users, as well as broader considerations

Opportunities for and challenges to greater

transparency, including legitimate law enforcement, national security, and other
considerations. The WG will focus, at least initially, on the practices of ICT companies and governments in
related to law enforcement and national security.

areas that could implicate privacy and free expression as described above, and may also include broader multistakeholder discussions on how ICT companies can respect human rights, and how governments can help or hinder
company efforts to do so.

AT: perm
perm doesnt solve FOC credibility causes international
backlash
IFEX 14 [4-22. In letter to Freedom Online Coalition, NGOs speak out on
surveillance of rights organisations.
https://www.ifex.org/international/2014/05/01/surveillance_rights_organisations/
7/14]//kmc
In response to Edward Snowden's testimony before the Council of Europe that the NSA and GCHQ monitored the

PEN International as part of

a coalition human rights organisations sent a letter to members of the Freedom
Online Coalition (FOC) on April 22, 2014 before its upcoming annual meeting in Tallinn, Estonia on April 28-29.
The FOC is a leading intergovernmental coalition, currently with 22 members,
established in 2011 with the express purpose of advancing Internet freedom (in
particular, free expression, assembly, association and privacy online). Both the US and UK are
members of the coalition. The April 22, 2014 letter follows. Dear Minister, On April 8,
confidential communications of human rights and civil society organisations,

2014, former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden testified before the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) via video-conference that the NSA and the United Kingdom Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) have used their surveillance capabilities to spy on the communications of

Snowden did not

reveal which groups the NSA or GCHQ have spied upon, but indicated that the types
of organizations whose communications had been compromised included major
global organizations similar to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and
other NGOs. Snowden explicitly told PACE members that the NSA had "specifically
targeted the communications of either leaders or staff members in a number of
purely civil or human rights organizations including domestically, within the
borders of the United States." If Snowden's assertion is accurate, such facts would
not only point to fresh dimensions of the overreach of NSA surveillance, but also
would constitute an outrageous breach of the US government's stated commitment
to human rights and freedom online. It also raises the very real possibility that these organizations'
human rights organizations and civil society groups, both domestically and internationally.

communications with confidential sources have been intercepted. Sharing this information with other governments

The US frequently
criticizes repressive states for unjustified government spying on human rights
organizations, media organizations, and civil society because such surveillance has
a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association and constitutes a clear
form of harassment and intimidation. Furthermore, as you are well aware, the US and
the UK have taken leadership roles in the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), the
leading intergovernmental coalition, established in The Hague on December 8, 2011, for the purpose
of "advancing Internet freedom - free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online - worldwide." FOC
members have joined in a shared commitment to work together to voice
concern over measures that restrict Internet freedom and to support
individuals whose human rights online are curtailed. FOC members also
have undertaken obligations to adopt and encourage policies and
practices, domestically and internationally, which ensure the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms online, in particular freedom of
expression, the right to privacy, freedom of assembly and access to
information. If the allegations about US and UK surveillance of human rights and
could put victims and human rights defenders the world over in imminent danger.

civil society organizations are true, such practices would contradict the express
commitments made by the US and the UK to the FOC. We, the undersigned civil society and
human rights organizations, seek clarification as to the allegations that the NSA and GCHQ monitored or are
monitoring the communications of our organizations, or of other civil society organizations, media organizations,
and human rights groups. Where the facts support these claims, we ask the US and UK governments to explain the
reasons why this is occurring or has occurred in the past, and the extent of such monitoring, its continuance, and its
We call upon members of the FOC to live up to their stated commitment
to support civil society members or journalists whose human rights online may have
been violated. We seek FOC member assistance in ascertaining the underlying
factual basis for the Snowden allegations with respect to NSA and/or GCHQ spying
on civil society and human rights groups, and in ensuring a halt to any violations of
our privacy, freedom of expression and other human rights online. Sincerely, Access

justification.

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government AGEIA DENSI Alternative Informatics Association Amnesty
International ARTICLE 19 Asociacin de Internautas Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Benetech Big Brother Watch Bits of Freedom Breadboard Society Bytes for All, Pakistan Center for
Constitutional Rights Center for Democracy & Technology Center for Freedom of Expression and Freedom of
Information (CELE), Palermo University School of Law Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Charity &
Security Network Committee to Protect Journalists The Constitution Project ContingenteMX Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Digital Rights Foundation Digital Rights Ireland Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Foundation for Information Policy Research Free Press Freedom
House Freedom of the Press Foundation Global Voices Advocacy Hiperderecho Human Rights in China Human
Rights Watch Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) La
Quadrature du Net Movimento MEGA New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute Online Policy Group
Open Net Korea OpenMedia.org OpenTheGovernment.org Panoptykon Foundation PEN American Center PEN
International Privacy International Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Reporters sans frontires
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Son Tus Datos Thai Netizen Network
World Press Freedom Committee World Privacy Forum

AT: Surveillance Key (Aff that reads Fontaine)

They author says the US can push internet freedom and
maintain surveillance
Fontaine 2014 (Richard; Bring Liberty Online; Sept;
www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/CNAS_BringingLibertyOnline_Fontaine.pdf; kdf)
Reenergizing the Internet freedom agenda begins with acknowledging that the
United States must promote that agenda even as it continues to engage in
electronic surveillance aimed at protecting national security. The U.S. government will
simply have to endure some significant amount of continuing criticism and opposition. At the same time, it

should continue to draw a sharp distinction between surveillance for national

security purposes (in which all governments engage) and monitoring as a means of political
repression (which democracies oppose). To those who see no distinction between American surveillance and
that of autocracies, government officials should point out that key legal guarantees matter: the U.S. Constitutions
first amendment protects against censorship and political repression at home, while in autocratic systems such
safeguards are nonexistent or not enforceable.49

Democracy CP

**1nc
Text: The USFG should revise its election process by:
-Encouraging voter participation in primaries
-Updating elections information
-Redrawing congressional districts to avoid partisanship
-AND requiring disclosure of political contributions
The counterplan addresses partisanship and low voter turnout
which stifle democracy
Snowe and Glickman 14 [Olympia Snowe and Dan Glickman. Former Sen.
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and former Agriculture Secretary and Rep. Dan Glickman
(D-Kan.) Ten Ways to Strengthen American Democracy. June 24, 2014.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/10-ways-to-strengthen-americandemocracy-108203.html#ixzz3fnopvI9E]//EMerz
The current level of dysfunction in Washington is like nothing we could have imagined when we began our journeys
in public service. Yet we are convinced, based on our decades of experience encompassing the legislative and
executive branches, that the status quo of today need not constitute the new normal of tomorrow. As such, on

the Bipartisan Policy Centers Commission on Political Reform, we

more than 60 concrete and achievable recommendations that will improve
the federal governments ability to function regardless of the deep ideological
divides that exist both among lawmakers and the American public, while addressing some of the
root causes of the polarization. What are some politically realistic reforms that could significantly
Tuesday, as part of
released

improve the way we govern? Here are 10 key ideas to fix the electoral process, return Congress to legislating and

1. Increase voter participation in primaries. Only 20 percent of

eligible voters vote in congressional primaries. The commission recommends that states and political
parties aim for 30 percent by 2020 and 35 percent by 2026 . Rather than a yearlong process
that confuses voters, we recommend a single June congressional primary date, more open
primaries and eliminating congressional caucuses and conventions. 2. Balance
access and integrity in our elections. We recommend that states use the data
revolution to (1) identify eligible, unregistered voters and offer them the opportunity
to register and (2) greatly improve the accuracy of voter rolls. 3. Ensure a fair
process for drawing congressional districts To reduce distrust between the two parties, we
enhance public service.

urge the adoption of redistricting commissions with the bipartisan support of state legislatures and the electorate,

to avoid the kind of single-party gerrymandering that has contributed to political

polarization. 4. Tackle money in politics All political contributions, including those made to outside and
independent groups, should be disclosed. Congress should also pass legislation requiring
detailed disclosure of spending by congressional leadership PACs and mandate
that those funds be used solely for political activities, not personal use. 5. Reform the filibuster and Senate debate
Eliminate the ability to filibuster the motion to proceed; in other words, dont allow filibusters on whether to move to
debate a bill. And, at the same time, guarantee a minimum number of 10 amendments, split between the majority
and minority, on each bill debated.

Elections are the I/L to democracy

Elections with integrity are key to democracy
Annan 13 (Kofi Annan. Annan is a Ghanaian diplomat who served as the seventh
Secretary-General of the United Nations. Deepening Democracy: Why Elections
with Integrity Matter. March 4, 2013. http://theelders.org/article/deepeningdemocracy-why-elections-integrity-matter)//EMerz
Elections with integrity are the foundation of democracy. In a true democracy, our
elected leaders are simply the temporary custodians of political power; the power
ultimately rests with the people. We elect leaders to act on our behalf so that we can go about our lives,
caring for our families, teaching at our schools, staffing our hospitals and running our businesses. At election time,

Elections also provide people

in each society with the opportunity to resolve political conflict peacefully. When
citizens go to the polls and cast their votes whether in Kenya, the United States or Indonesia
they aspire not only to elect their leaders, but to choose a direction for their nation. The
Commission defines an election with integrity as one that is based on the
democratic principles of universal suffrage and political equality as reflected in
international standards and agreements , and is professional, impartial and transparent in its
preparation and administration throughout the electoral cycle. At its core, the ideal of electoral integrity
means that all voters should have an equal opportunity to participate in public
debate and cast their ballots, all votes are counted equally, and all candidates
seeking election do so on a level playing field.
the power returns to the people and they in turn empower the elected.

at: CP Links to PTX

Snowe and Glickman 14 indicate that the current election
system is contributing to partisan gridlock- things like
congressional districts are not bipartisan in the status quofixing the problems in elections contributing to partisanship is
bipartisan.

at: Democracy CP
Election reform is super partisan- past controversies over
jurisdiction prove- links to politics
DeWitt 14 (Nathan DeWitt. Professor of English and Philosophy at DePaul
University. Presidential Commission on Election Administration offers worthwhile
ideas for reform (but dont hold your breath). January 23, 2014.
https://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/presidential-commissionon-election-administration-offers-ideas-for-reform-but-dont-hold-yourbreath/)//EMerz
The Presidential Commission on Election Administration yesterday presented its final report with a series of
recommendations designed to help elections officials improve the voting process in the United States. The report is
the result of a six-month study conducted by the bipartisan 10-member commission focused on the election day

At first glance, it may appear to some

that the commission is attempting to limit discussion of U.S. electoral problems to
simple and relatively uncontroversial issues such as modernizing voting technology
and reducing average wait times for voters. (The commission proposes a maximum nationwide
wait time of 30 minutes.) As Ben Jacobs at the Daily Beast pointed out, The commission dodged issues
normally associated with partisan battles, such as voter ID and the Voting Rights
Act. Avoiding even more contentious matters such as opening up the two-party system to multi-party competition
problems that have plagued voting in recent U.S. elections.

or leveling the playing field by implementing genuine campaign finance reform, the commissions key
recommendations call for: modernizing the registration process through continued expansion of online voter
registration and expanded state collaboration in improving the accuracy of voter lists; improving access to the polls
through expansion of the period for voting before the traditional Election Day, and through the selection of suitable,
well-equipped polling place facilities, such as schools; introducing state-of-the-art techniques to assure efficient
management of polling places; and, reforming the standard-setting and certification process for new voting
technology to address soon-to-be antiquated voting machines and to encourage innovation and the adoption of
widely available off-the-shelf technologies. Delving a little deeper into the report, there appear to be several
worthwhile recommendations that are surprisingly frank in their criticism of the highly flawed U.S. electoral system.
Some of the documents most useful recommendations arguably pertain to improving the general professionalism
of election administration in the United States. The report explains the unique nature of the U.S. electoral system in
relation to the rest of the world, with most other electoral systems having central election commissions that govern
national elections. Other countries exhibit one or another of these features in their election systems, but none
have the particular combination that characterizes administration in the United States, the report explains.
Decentralization and reliance on volunteers ensure that the quality of administration varies by jurisdiction and

involvement of officials with partisan affiliations means

that the rules or their interpretations will be subject to charges of
partisanship depending on who stands to win from the officials decisions .
even by polling place. The

One overriding problem that the commission identified was the partisan nature of election administration. Because
all election officials (whether elected or appointed) are selected on a partisan basis, those who run our elections
are subjected to competing pressures from partisans and political constituencies, on the one hand, and their
obligation to the voting public as a whole, on the other, the commission noted. Because the selection of election
officials on a partisan basis can risk public confidence in the quality and impartiality of administration, the
commission recommended that the responsible agency in every state should have on staff individuals chosen solely
on the basis of experience and expertise. In a section of the report on Incorporation of Recommendations Made by
Other Commissions and Organizations, there is curiously no mention of recommendations made by the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which has been observing U.S. elections since 2002, or the
long-outstanding recommendations of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, the so-called Carter-Baker

the OSCE reminded U.S.

authorities of the 87 recommendations of the Carter-Baker Commission, most of
which have never been implemented. One of that commissions most important recommendations
Commission. In its preliminary post-election statement issued in November 2012,

was for the United States to move toward nonpartisan election administration. Carter-Baker recommended in

particular that states strip election responsibilities from partisan elected secretaries of state, placing them instead
in the hands of professional election administrators appointed by governors and approved by a supermajority vote
of state legislators. There are several other important issues that are conspicuously absent from the report released
yesterday by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, some of which have been repeatedly
highlighted as problematic by international election observers of the OSCE. There is no mention in the report, for
example, of the election-rigging practice known as gerrymandering, which enabled Republicans to keep control of
the House of Representatives despite losing the popular vote nationwide by 1.4 million votes in 2012. In a recent
publication outlining best electoral practices for OSCE member states (including the U.S.), the OSCE Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights tacitly criticized the American system of drawing congressional districts.
Electoral constituencies should be drawn in a manner that preserves equality among voters, noted ODIHR, adding
that the manner in which constituencies are drawn should not circumvent the principle of equal suffrage. Yet,
many U.S. states use an arcane and highly politicized system of drawing district boundaries based on past voting
histories and racial composition in order to dilute the voting power of certain groups and virtually ensure preferred
electoral outcomes. Following the 2010 census and redistricting process, the GOP gerrymandered congressional
districts in such a way to guarantee Republican victories. There is also the matter of permanent felon
disenfranchisement in many U.S. states, which contravenes the international obligation of the United States to
ensure universal and equal suffrage to each citizen who has reached the age of majority. Yet, in the U.S., an
estimated 5.85 million Americans are denied the right to vote (or seek office) because of laws that disenfranchise
people with felony convictions. Because of institutionalized racial disparities in the criminal justice system, these
policies have resulted in one of every 13 African Americans unable to vote. The OSCE has repeatedly expressed
serious concerns over the disproportionate impact of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. As explained in
its final report on Election 2012, Minorities are disproportionately affected and it is estimated that 2.2 million
African-Americans are disenfranchised. Prisoner and exprisoner voting rights are determined by state law and vary
widely. Citizens from different states, who have committed the same crime, have their voting rights affected
differently. Restrictions are often disproportionate to the crime committed and some states do not differentiate
between types of crimes. Four states deprive all people with a criminal conviction of the right to vote, irrespective
of the gravity of the crime or if the sentence has been served, unless pardoned by the state governor. Another
major problem in the United States is the discriminatory laws against independent, or third, parties. The legal
framework should ensure that all political parties and candidates are able to compete in elections on the basis of
equal treatment before the law, explained the OSCE. Despite some of these notable ommissions, the reaction from
election reform advocates to the report released yesterday seems to be generally positive. The League of Women
Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara said, We are pleased to see that the bipartisan Commission was able to roll
up their sleeves and get to work on some of the endemic troubles plaguing our nations polling places. PCEAs
prescription for what to do about lack of resources, inadequate compliance with federal laws, the need for
professionalization of the election workforce, and creating a benchmark of no one waiting to vote longer than 30
minutes, are badly needed fixes for election administrators and voters. Common Causes Karen Hobert Flynn noted
that While some of the commissions recommendations require legislative action and appropriations, state and local
election officials should act on others on their own initiative. For example, voting locations often can be better
organized, and sample ballots printed more clearly and distributed earlier without added costs. All thats needed is

as the commission itself points out, due to the

complexity and variation in local election administration no set of
practices can be considered best for every jurisdiction. Some reforms that work
the will to act. But unfortunately,

well in certain contexts will be unnecessary or fail in others, noted the commission. In other words, dont hold your
breath for any meaningful and comprehensive nationwide election reform.

Doctor Patient Trust

**1nc
Text: The United States Federal Government should track
healthcare companies quality of care using the Department of
Health and Human services to evaluate health care companies.
Institutional trust is key to patient doctor trust
Rowe and Calnan 6 (Rosemary Rowe and Michael Calnan. Professor of Medical
Sociology, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of
Kent. Trust Relations in Health Care- the New Agenda. 2006.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/eurpub/16/1/4.full.pdf)//EMerz
There is
considerable evidence as to what factors encourage patient trust in clinicians: the
clinicians technical competence, respect for patient views, information sharing, and
their confidence in patients ability to manage their illness .8 Patient participation per se does
Given that trust remains important, how can new forms of trust relations be developed and sustained?

not necessarily result in higher trust, rather it is associated with value congruence regarding participation, patient
involvement produced higher trust where patients wanted to participate.9 In contrast, evidence as to what builds
institutional trust is sparse, with trust relations between providers and between providers and managers a

Hall et al US survey of HMO members found that system trust

could help the development of interpersonal trust, where there was no prior
knowledge of the clinician, but it is not known how interpersonal trust affects
institutional trust. Medical errors and cost containment are associated with distrust
of health care systems, whereas relationship building with the local community is
regarded as an important trust building mechanism. However, little research has been
particularly neglected area.

conducted to identify how different modes of governance affect institutional trust. The focus of trust relationships

in market based systems such

as the US patient trust may be more important to secure loyalty to
particular providers whereas in tax-financed systems which are organized by national or regional
agencies public trust may be more necessary. However, as health systems converge and increasingly share
common challenges including: providing adequate patient choice; managing a mixed
economy of provision; and more explicit rationing, then both interpersonal and
institutional trust will continue to be important for all health systems. In conclusion, we
would argue that clinicians and managers need to address and respond to the changing
nature of trust relations in health care. The benefits of trust demonstrate the value to be Trust and
may of course differ according to the model of health care delivery;

the sociology of the professions 5 gained from ensuring that both interpersonal and institutional trust are
developed, sustained, and where necessary rebuilt. Trust is still fundamental to the clinicianpatient relationship but
as that relationship has changed so has the nature of trust. Trust is now conditional and has to be negotiated but,
whilst clinicians may have to earn patients trust, there is good evidence as to what is required to build and sustain
such interpersonal trust. The lack of knowledge about how institutional trust can be developed indicates the need
for research, ideally through inter-country comparisons to identify whether such trust varies by health system and
how it can be generated. The cost of failing to recognize the importance of trust and to address the changing nature
of trust relations could be substantial: economically, politically, and most important of all, in terms of health
outcomes.

Government monitoring of healthcare quality ensures trust in

patients
CQHCA 1 (Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the
Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. March 1, 2001.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222265/)//EMerz
Recommendation 2: All health care organizations, professional groups, and private and public purchasers should
pursue six major aims; specifically, health care should be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and

safety, effectiveness, patientcenteredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity are achievable throughout the
health care sector. This opportunity for improvement is not confined to any sector, form of payment, type of
organization, or clinical discipline. Problems in health care quality affect all Americans today,
and all can benefit from a rededication to improving quality, regardless of where they receive
equitable. The committee believes substantial improvements in

their care. The committee applauds the Administration and Congress for their current efforts to establish a
mechanism for tracking the quality of care. Title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299 et seq.; Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality Part A) provides support for the development of a National Quality Report,
which is currently ongoing. Section 913(a)(2) of the act states: Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Secretary, acting
through the Director, shall submit to Congress an annual report on national trends in the quality of health care
provided to the American people. Recommendation 3:

Congress should continue to authorize

and appropriate funds for, and the Department of Health and Human
Services should move forward expeditiously with the establishment of,
monitoring and tracking processes for use in evaluating the progress of
the health system in pursuit of the above-cited aims of safety,
effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity. The
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services should report annually
to Congress and the President on the quality of care provided to the American
people. Without ongoing tracking of quality to assess the country's progress in meeting the aims set
forth in this chapter, interested partiesincluding patients, health care practitioners, policy
makers, educators, and purchaserscannot identify progress or understand where
improvement efforts are most needed. Continued funding for this activity should be ensured.

Drone Strikes CP

**1nc
Text: The United States Federal Government should
End signature strikes
Limit targeted killings to a limited number of specific
terrorists
Improve congressional oversight of drone strikes
Continue restrictions on armed drone sales
Work internationally to establish rules and norms
governing the use of drones
Zenko 13Micah is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution,
Congressional Research Service, and State Department's Office of Policy Planning.
(Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-andwarfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736)//JLee

Zenko puts forward a substantive agenda. He argues that the United States should
end so-called signature strikes, which target unidentified militants based on their behavior patterns and
personal networks, and limit targeted killings to a limited number of specific terrorists with
transnational ambitions. He also calls Congress to improve its oversight of drone
strikes and to continue restrictions on armed drone sales. Finally, he recommends that
the United States work internationally to establish rules and norms governing the
use of drones.

--xt Solves US-EU Relations

CP solvesDrones are hated more than surveillance by the EU
encourages a limiting of drone strikes
Dworkin 13Anthony is a senior policy fellow at ECFR, where he leads the organisations
work in the area of human rights, democracy, and justice. (Actually, drones worry Europe
more than spying July 18, 2013
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_actually_drones_worry_europe_more_than_spying)//JL
ee

Relations between the United States and Europe hit a low point following revelations that Washington
was spying on European Union buildings and harvesting foreign email messages. Behind the scenes, though, it is not data
protection and surveillance that produces the most complications for the
transatlantic intelligence relationship, but rather America's use of armed
drones to kill terrorist suspects away from the battlefield . Incidents such as the recent
killing of at least 17 people in Pakistan are therefore only likely to heighten European unease. In public, European
governments have displayed a curiously passive approach to American drone
strikes, even as their number has escalated under Barack Obamas presidency. Many Europeans believe that
the majority of these strikes are unlawful, but their governments have maintained
an uneasy silence on the issue. This is partly because of the uncomfortable fact that information provided by
European intelligence services may have been used to identify some targets. It is also because of a reluctance
to accuse a close ally of having violated international law . And it is partly because European
countries have not worked out exactly what they think about the use of drones and how far they agree within the European Union on
the question.

Now, however, Europes muted stance on drone strikes looks likely to

change.

Why? For one thing, many European countries are now trying to acquire armed drones themselves, and this gives them
an incentive to spell out clearer rules for their use. More importantly, perhaps, Europeans have noticed that drones are proliferating
rapidly, and that countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are soon likely to possess them. T here

is a clear
European interest in trying to establish some restrictive standards on drone use
before it is too late. For all these reasons, many European countries are now
conducting internal reviews of their policy on drones, and discussions are also likely to start at a panEuropean level. But as Europeans begin to articulate their policy on the use of drones, a
bigger question looms. Can Europe and the United States come together to agree
on when drone strikes are permissible? Until now, that would have seemed impossible. Since the September
11 attacks, the United States has based its counterterrorism operations on the claim that it is engaged in a worldwide armed conflict
with al Qaeda and associated forces an idea that President Obama inherited from President George W. Bush and has been kept as
the basis for an expanded drone strike campaign. European countries have generally rejected this claim. However, the changes to

Obama
suggested that he anticipated a time in the not-too-distant future when the armed
conflict against al Qaeda might come to an end. More substantially, he made clear that his administration was in the
process of switching its policy so that, outside zones of hostilities, it would only use drone strikes
against individuals who posed a continuing and imminent threat to the
U.S. That is a more restrictive standard than the claim that any member of al
Qaeda or an associated force could lawfully be killed with a drone strike at any time.
European countries might be more willing to accept an approach based on this kind
of self-defense idea. However, there remain some big stumbling blocks. First, a good deal about Obamas new
American policy that President Obama announced in May could open the way to at least the possibility of a dialogue.

standards is still unclear. How does he define a zone of hostilities, where the new rules will not apply? And what is his
understanding of an imminent threat? European countries are likely to interpret these key terms in a much narrower way than the
United States. Second, Obamas new approach only applies as a policy choice. His more expansive legal claims remain in the

if the United States is serious about

working toward international standards on drone strikes, as Obama and his officials
background so that he is free to return to them if he wishes. But

have sometimes suggested, then Europe is the obvious place to start. And there are a number of steps the
administration could take to make an agreement with European countries more likely. For a start, it should cut
back the number of drone strikes and be much more open about the reasons for the attacks it conducts
and the process for reviewing them after the fact. It should also elaborate its criteria for
determining who poses an imminent threat in a way that keeps attacks within
tight limits. And, as U.S. forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014, it should keep in mind the possibility of
declaring the war against al Qaeda to be over. All this said, Europe also has some tough decisions to
make, and it is unclear whether European countries are ready to take a hard look at
their views about drone strikes, addressing any weaknesses or inconsistencies in their own position. If they are,
the next few years could offer a breakthrough in developing international standards for the use of this new kind of weapon, before
the regular use of drones spreads across the globe.

--xt Solves Terrorism

Top military official drone strikes cause terror
Hussain 2015 (Murtaza; Retired General: Drones Create More Terrorists Than
They Kill, Iraq War Helped Create ISIS; Jul 16;
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/16/retired-general-drones-create-terroristskill-iraq-war-helped-create-isis/; kdf)
Retired Army Gen. Mike Flynn, a top intelligence official in the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, says in a forthcoming interview on Al Jazeera English that the drone war is creating
more terrorists than it is killing. He also asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq helped create the
Islamic State and that U.S. soldiers involved in torturing detainees need to be held legally accountable for their
actions. Flynn, who in 2014 was forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has in recent months
become an outspoken critic of the Obama administrations Middle East strategy, calling for a more hawkish
approach to the Islamic State and Iran. But his enthusiasm for the application of force doesnt extend to the use of
drones. In the interview with Al Jazeera presenter Mehdi Hasan, set to air July 31, the former three star general
says:

When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage
than you are going to cause good. Pressed by Hasan as to whether drone strikes are creating more
terrorists than they kill, Flynn says, I dont disagree with that. He describes the present approach of drone
warfare as a failed strategy.

The CP solvesdrones do not do anything to solve terrorism

other military tech solves
Zenko 13Micah is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution,
Congressional Research Service, and State Department's Office of Policy Planning.
(Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-andwarfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736)//JLee

The combination of persistence and responsiveness, high-quality

intelligence infrastructures, and tacit host-state support have made
drones the preeminent tool for U.S. lethal operations against suspected
terrorists and militants where states are unable to singlehandedly deal with the threat they pose. As a result,
drones are not just another 8 Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies weapons platform. Instead, they
provide the United States with a distinct capability that significantly
reduces many of the inherent political, diplomatic, and military risks of
targeted killings. Compared to other military tools, the advantages of using drones
particularly, that they avoid direct risks to U.S. servicemembers vastly outweigh the limited
costs and consequences. Decision-makers are now much more likely to use lethal force against a
range of perceived threats than in the past. Since 9/11, over 95 percent of all nonbattlefield targeted killings have
been conducted by dronesthe remaining attacks were JSOC raids and AC-130 gunships and offshore sea- or airlaunched cruise missiles. And the frequency of drone strikes is only increasing over time. George W. Bush
authorized more nonbattlefield targeted killing strikes than any of his predecessors (50), and Barack Obama has

without any meaningful

checksimposed by domestic or international political pressureor sustained oversight from other branches of
more than septupled that number since he entered office (350). Yet

government, U.S. drone strikes create a moral hazard because of the negligible risks from such strikes and the
unprecedented disconnect between American officials and personnel and the actual effects on the ground.14
However, targeted killings by other platforms would almost certainly inflict greater collateral damage, and

the

effectiveness of drones makes targeted killings the more likely policy

option compared to capturing suspected militants or other nonmilitary options.

CP solves terrorism
Zenko 13Micah is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution,
Congressional Research Service, and State Department's Office of Policy Planning.
(Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-andwarfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736)//JLee
The U.S. use of armed drones has two unique advantages over manned aircraft, distant missile strikes, and special

drones allow for sustained

persistence over potential targets. The existing U.S. arsenal of armed
dronesprimarily the Predator and Reapercan remain aloft, fully loaded with munitions, for
over fourteen hours, compared to four hours or less for F-16 fighter jets and
A-10 ground attack aircraft.5 And unlike manned aircraft or raids, drones fly directly over hostile
territory without placing pilots or ground troops at risk of injury, capture, or
death. Second, drones provide a near-instantaneous responsiveness
dramatically shrinking what U.S. military targeting experts call the find-fix-finish loop
that most other platforms lack. For example, a drone-fired missile travels faster than the
speed of sound, striking a target within secondsoften before it is heard by people on
operations raids when it comes to destroying targets. First,

the ground. This ability stands in stark contrast to the August 1998 cruise missile salvo targeting Osama bin
Laden, which had to be programmed based on projections of where he would be in four to six hours, to allow time
to analyze the intelligence, obtain presidential authorization, program the missiles, and fly them to the target.6
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) loaded with conventional munitions can reach distant targets much
faster than cruise missiles, but they carry the dire risk of misattribution as a U.S. nuclear first strike against Russia

drone-fired missiles can beand have beendiverted

at the last moment if noncombatants enter the likely blast radius.7
or China, for instance. Finally,

--xt Solves Credibility

CP solves credibilitydrone strikes will always be blamed on
the US
Zenko 13Micah is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution,
Congressional Research Service, and State Department's Office of Policy Planning.
(Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-andwarfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736)//JLee

the American and international

publics often misunderstand how drones are used. And in affected states, citizens
often blame the United States for collateral damage that could have been caused by
the host states own weapon systems. According to a recent report from Yemen: Its extremely
difficult to figure out who is responsible for any given strike. . . . It could be a manned plane
The problem with maintaining that drone strikes are covert is that both

from the Yemeni Air Force or the U.S. military. Or it could be an unmanned drone flown by the U.S. military or the

But no matter who launches a particular strike, Yemenis are likely to blame it
on the Americans. Whats more, we found that many more civilians are being killed than officials
CIA. . . .

acknowledge.37 Congressional oversight of drone strikes varies depending on whether the CIA or the U.S. military is
the lead executive authority. The CIA, according to the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
Senator Dianne Feinstein, meets its fully and currently informed legal obligations through monthly in-depth
oversight meetings to review strike records and question every aspect of the program.38 Individual JSOC strikes
are not reported to the relevant armed services committees, but are covered under the broad special access

members on the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, many of their peers have
little understanding of how drone strikes are conducted within the countries for
which they are responsible for exercising oversight. Even serving White House
officials and members of Congress repeatedly make inaccurate statements about
U.S. targeted killings and appear to be unaware of how policies have changed over
the past decade.39 At the same time, the judiciary committees have been repeatedly denied access to the
program biannual reporting to Congress. According to senior staff

June 2010 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that presented the legal basis for the drone strike that killed U.S.

Finally, despite nearly ten

years of nonbattlefield targeted killings, no congressional committee has conducted
a hearing on any aspect of them.2
citizen and alleged leader of AQAP Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011.40

at: Links to the Terrorism DA

Wrongthey just are just a recruitment tool for terroristCP
solves
Abbas 13Hassan is a senior advisor at Asia Society and the author of the forthcoming
book The Taliban Revival. (How Drones Create More Terrorists August 23, 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-moreterrorists/278743/)//JLee

Drone strikes may create more jihadi militants . (Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters) Recently,
strong evidence has begun to suggest that terrorists use drone strikes as a
recruitment tool. Of course, the value of drones in the arena of intelligence-gathering and secret surveillance
of foes (and even friends) is unmistakable. In warzones too, it can support ground operations in significant and even

What is
debatable is its use as a counter-terrorism instrument in theaters that are not
declared war zones, or in cases where a sovereign state is not fully and publicly on board with this policy.
Lack of transparency in regulations that govern this new type of warfare, the
unverifiable nature of targets, and questions over the credibility of intelligence only complicates the
matter. Mark Bowden's important contribution to the drone debate raises critical questions that
policy makers will be wise to consider for the future use of this new tool of war. One of the important
arguments mentioned in the piece revolves around the notion that drone strikes
might be less provocative than ground assaults for terrorists, meaning that standard warfare
decisive ways. None of this is controversial, though the ones on the receiving end will certainly not like it.

might create more terrorists than drones do. Lets first accept what is obvious: more civilians are killed in standard

When it comes to
drones strikes, the ratio of civilian deaths is certainly lower, but the issue is not
about the number of civilian casualties alone . The inherently secret nature of the weapon
creates a persistent feeling of fear in the areas where drones hover in the sky, and the hopelessness of
communities that are on the receiving end of strikes causes severe backlash -- both in terms of anti-U.S.
opinion and violence. Response to drone strikes comes in many varieties. First,
revenge is targeted at those within the easy range of the insurgents and militants.
warfare, and the history of warfare in the 20th century sufficiently proves the point.

The victims of those revenge terrorist attacks also consider the drone strikes responsible for all the mayhem.

Consequently, terrorists and ordinary people are drawn closer to each other out of
sympathy, whereas a critical function of any successful counter-terrorism policy is to
win over public confidence so that they join in the campaign against the perpetrators of terror. Poor public
awareness -- which is often a function of inadequate education -- about terrorist
organizations indeed plays a role in building this perspective . Public outrage against drone
strikes circuitously empowers terrorists. It allows them space to survive, move around, and maneuver. Pakistan is a

Many in Pakistan now believe that drone strikes tend to

motivate Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban to conduct terrorist attacks that target
Pakistan's security forces as well as civilians. The duplicity of Pakistan's political and military
elite in giving a green light to the U.S. drone policy proved to be counterproductive.
perfect example of this phenomenon.

The sponsors and supporters of drone strikes in U.S. policy circles apparently ignored the wider socio-political
impact and indirect costs when evaluating its efficacy.

Drone Strikes are unpopularmost attempts of terrorism are

because of drone strikes
Gerges 13Fawaz is Professor of International Relations at the London School of
Economics and Political Science (LSE), and holder of the Emirates Professorship in

Contemporary Middle East Studies. He was also the inaugural Director of the LSE Middle East
Centre from 2010 until 2013. Gerges most recent books are The New Middle East: Protest
and Revolution in the Arab World (Cambridge University Press, January 2014) and Obama
and the Middle East: The End of Americas Moment? (Palgrave Macmillan, September 2013).
On the ten-year anniversary of 9/11 , Oxford University Press released Gerges book, The
Rise and Fall of Al Qaeda. In his highly anticipated counterterrorism speech last month, U.S.
President Barack Obama publicly acknowledged -- for the first time -- the human toll that
drone attacks inflict on Muslim civilians. (Why drone strikes are real enemy in 'war on
terror' June 21, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/terrorism-gerges/)//JLee

"It is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties," he admitted, adding,
"These deaths will haunt us." While he pledged to curtail the use of drone strikes in the
future, those words rang hollow when he went on to reaffirm his commitment to the targeted
killings because, in his view, any alternative would invite far more civilian casualties .
Obama's drone calculus ignores the CIA's warning about the continuing "possibilities of
blowback." Officials in Washington ignore the high-cost ways in which the U.S. "war on terror" and the use of tactics

This is a rising
phenomenon that has not been seriously debated, despite a string of high-profile
attacks. While trials have yet to take place , the Woolwich attack in London and the Boston Marathon
bombings are suspected to be the latest cases in point. In case after case over the past few years,
attackers and would-be attackers have cited the war on terror, first in Iraq and now in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere as proof that the West is at war with Islam.
The presence of Western boots in Muslim lands and the continuing use of drone
strikes have triggered a backlash among scores of deluded young Muslims who live in
America and Europe, and who come from different educational and class background, including high achievers.
such as drone strikes fuel the fires of home-grown radicalization in Western societies.

What is surprising is that these attackers are not unified by a core set of ideological beliefs, or a belonging to a

These are a different set of

terrorists, in that they radicalized themselves -- enraged by specific grievances, while also having been
integrated into life in Western society. Falling under the influence of militant preachers mostly online, they have
internalized the kind of religious-political worldview that justified their taking
matters into their own hands -- in short, a license to kill. Instead of trying to dismiss how the
manner in which the US "war on terror" has been waged has motivated these angry,
particular terrorist group, but by a core set of grievances, real or imagined.

deluded young men to kill, it behooves us to take stock of their voices and to understand the drivers behind this
pattern of violent rage. The goal is not to rationalize or justify their murders but to make sense of their violent
actions. Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, for example, allegedly left a note claiming
responsibility for the April attack, describing it as retribution for U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The purported
message was handwritten on the interior wall of the boat where he hid from authorities, bleeding from gunshot

Tsarnaev is said to have described the bombing victims as "collateral

damage": "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims ," Tsarnaev wrote. He
described his brother Tamerlan, who died in a shootout with police, as a martyr. And after his Times Square
bombing attempt, Faisal Shahzad -- who held a master's degree in business administration and who
seemed fully integrated into American life - reportedly told investigators that he acted out of
anger over the CIA's Predator strikes in Pakistan, especially a drone attack that
took place while he was visiting the country. Asked later by U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaun
whether he was sure he wanted to plead guilty, Shahzad replied that he wanted "to plead guilty 100 times
because unless the United States pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq, until they stop drone strikes in
Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen and stop attacking Muslim lands, we will attack
the United States and be out to get them." Pressed by the judge to explain his motivations,
wounds. In the note,

Shahzad answered: "I consider myself a Mujahedeen and a Muslim soldier," he said. Asked by Cedarbaum whether
he understood that children and other innocents might have been among his victims, Shahzad was unapologetic.

Shahzad is
not unique. Najibullah Zazi, who pleaded guilty to plotting to detonate a bomb in the
New York subway, is also an example of bottom-up radicalization. Like Shahzad, Zazi
told the court that in August 2008 he decided to go with friends to Pakistan to join the
Taliban in fighting the United States' invasion of Afghanistan. He went to the Taliban,
"They don't see the drones killing children in Afghanistan," he said. "It's a war and I'm a part of it."

not the other way around, and while in Pakistan he was persuaded by al Qaeda operatives to return to America to
be a suicide bomber. "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States was doing to civilians in

the
Pakistani-born suspect charged in an alleged plot to blow up the Washington
subway system in October 2010 came to the FBI's attention because he had asked
people about ways to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan , according to unsealed
Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving their souls," Zazi told the court. Likewise,

court records. Farooque Ahmed, a 34-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, reportedly hoped to journey to his native
country and to fight there. The Taliban and al Qaeda did not recruit him. Ahmed, an engineer with a bachelor's

His
ultimate goal, according to an FBI affidavit, was "traveling to Afghanistan to fight
and kill Americans." Similarly, the Sweden suicide bomber, Taimour Abdulwahab alAbdaly, who blew himself up in Stockholm , studied in Britain and was married with three children.
degree from the City College of New York, was supposedly radicalized by the conflict in Afghanistan-Pakistan.

Al-Abdaly's friends paint a picture of man who enjoyed basketball and a good party, yet who had become
increasingly angry over the past few years. His Facebook wall posts give a hint of his gradual radicalization.

One

shows a blindfolded Iraqi man being taunted and abused by U.S. soldiers.

Several more
are part of a series on "Russia war crimes in Chechnya." According to the New York Times, al-Abdaly sent an audio
recording to Swedish authorities minutes before the explosions warning his actions would "speak for themselves."

"Now, your children -- daughters and sisters -- will die like our brothers and sisters
and children die," The Times reported. "As long as you do not end your war against Islam and the
insult against the prophet and your stupid support for that pig Vilks" (Sweden has about 500 signals intelligence
specialists in the NATO force in Afghanistan). As a round-up of these violent voices show, home-grown extremism is

a blowback against what they see as the U.S. "war on

terror" in Muslim countries, a war that kills more civilians than al Qaeda operators. In
a phenomenon driven by identity politics,

this sense, the fight disproportionately inflames anti-Western sentiments and creates more terrorists at home.

the U.S. "War on Terror" is very unpopular among Muslims in

Europe, with 83% of Muslims in Spain opposed, 78% in France, 77% in Britain, and
62% in Germany. Three years later, a survey of British Muslims for the BBC showed that 75% said it was
According to a 2006 Pew poll,

wrong for the "West" to intervene militarily in Pakistan and Afghanistan, though a majority of respondents -- 78% -said they opposed Taliban attacks against Western troops there. In his national security address ,

Obama
hinted that the U.S. might begin to bring a closure to the "war on terror" . With al Qaeda's
core now "on the path to defeat," he argued, "this war, like all wars, must end." Although Obama did not
go far enough by suspending drone strikes, his scaling back of the targeted killing
and recommitting to closing the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, are steps in the
right direction. The importance of Obama's speech lies in educating the nation about the diminishing terrorist
threat. One would hope that the president would level with Americans about the limits and costs of force in
international affairs. Terrorism cannot be eradicated by pushing a button, as in drone attacks, or even military
intervention that might cause a backlash that spurs more, not less, terrorism. Deescalating the "war on terror" by
halting the questionable use of tactics such as drone attacks might not bring an end to home-grown radicalization.

deactivating the cultural and religious minefields that entrap

disillusioned Muslim teens and spur some of them down a violent path.
But it could go a long way to

at: Links to Politics - Bipart support

Bipart support exists for limiting drone use
Serle 2014 (Jack; New bill would force Barack Obama to publish US drone strike
casualties; Apr 5; https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/04/05/new-billwould-force-president-obama-to-publish-drone-strike-casualties/; kdf)
A bipartisan Bill that would force President Obama to reveal casualties from covert US
drone strikes has been put before the US Congress. If successful, the bill would require the White
House to publish an annual report of casualties from covert US drone strikes. The
reports would include the total number of combatants killed or injured, the total number of civilians killed or injured,
and the total number of people killed or injured by drones who are not counted as combatants or civilians. The Bill
would also compel the White House to reveal how it defines combatants and civilians in its covert drone war.
However the annual casualty counts proposed by the bill will not include those killed and injured in drone attacks on
conventional battlefields, including Afghanistan and any country where the US officially declares war in the future.
The Bureau revealed the US and UK had launched almost 1,200 drone strikes in Afghanistan between 2008 and
2012. However in March 2013 the Bureau discovered the US military had stopped publishing data on drone use in
Afghanistan and had deleted the few months data it had previously released from its publicly available records. The
bill says the first report would include casualties from the strikes in covert operations from the six previous years,
ensuring all drone strikes under President Obama were included. There have been at least 397 drone strikes in
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia during Obamas two terms. They have killed at least 2,183 people including 279
civilians according to the Bureaus estimates, based on open-source information. While there were fewer drone
strikes launching during President Bushs administration 52 strikes between 2002 and January 2009 they killed
more people on average than the Obamas strikes. At least 416 people died in Bush era strikes, including 167

The bill is co-sponsored by California Democrat Adam Schiff and North

Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Schiff said: An annual report will provide a modest, but important,
civilians.

measure of transparency and oversight regarding the use of drones. Despite our best efforts to ensure to a nearcertainty that no civilians will be killed or injured, sometimes strikes do result in civilian casualties. We must be
more transparent and accountable, both with ourselves and with the world, and narrow the perception gap between
what really happens, and what is reported or assumed. Jones said: Our governments use of drones for targeted
killings should be subject to intense scrutiny and oversight. He added: I believe this legislation is an important step
in that direction, he added.

The sponsors are trying to gather bipartisan support for their

bill

which has been referred to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Armed
Services Committee. The intelligence committee then armed services committee will consider whether to allow the
bill to progress to be debated by the House of Representatives. The independent legislative-data-analysis firm
GovTrack gives the bill a negligible chance of passing the committee stage. However the bill has similar language to

Calls
for transparency over drone strikes have grown steadily over the past 18 months . In
the Intelligence Authorisation Act and could be offered as an amendment to that bill if it reaches the House.

October 2013 both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for greater transparency and
accountability after investigating US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen.

at: Links to Politics - No Obama Push

Obama doesnt push the CP
Baker and Davis 2015 (Peter and Julie Hirschfeld; Amid Errors, Obama
Publicly Wrestles With Drones Limits; Apr 24;
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/hostage-deaths-show-risk-of-dronestrikes.html; kdf)
for all of Mr. Obamas achingly public struggle over the right approach to
terrorism and war, he does not seem likely to overhaul his drone-oriented strategy.
And yet,

Reviews of the strike that killed the hostages may yield better ways to conduct the war officials were already
talking about forming a fusion center that would link agencies to deal with hostage situations but

aides

gave no sense that Mr. Obama would embrace a wholesale shift.

These kinds of
counterterrorism operations have diminished the effectiveness of Al Qaeda, said Josh Earnest, the White House
press secretary. This kind of pressure has been effective in enhancing the national security of the United States.

Aides say that the president views the strikes as a critical tool in confronting Al
Qaeda in dangerous and remote regions such as the one where Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Lo Porto died. They argue
that the practice has undermined Al Qaedas ability to plot and execute attacks against the United States, recruit
followers and operate a military organization.

International Model Net-Benefit

The CP gets modeledcreating a drone framework solves
terrorism and promotes human rights
Zenko 13Micah is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at Harvard University's
Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution,
Congressional Research Service, and State Department's Office of Policy Planning.
(Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-andwarfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736)//JLee
Beyond the United States, drones are proliferating even as they are becoming increasingly sophisticated, lethal,

a dozen other states and nonstate actors

could possess armed drones within the next ten years and leverage the technology
in unforeseen and harmful ways. It is the stated position of the Obama administration that
its strategy toward drones will be emulated by other states and nonstate
actors. In an interview, President Obama revealed, I think creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight
stealthy, resilient, and autonomous. At least

checks on how we use unmanned weapons is going to be a challenge for me and for my successors for some time
to comepartly because technology may evolve fairly rapidly for other countries as well.71 History

shows that how states adopt and use new military capabilities is often
influenced by how other states haveor have notused them in the past.
Furthermore, norms can deter states from acquiring new technologies.72 Norms
sometimes but not always codified as legal regimeshave dissuaded states from
deploying blinding lasers and landmines, as well as chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons. A well-articulated and internationally supported
normative framework, bolstered by a strong U.S. example, can shape
armed drone proliferation and employment in the coming decades. Such
norms would not hinder U.S. freedom of action; rather, they would internationalize alreadynecessary domestic policy reforms and, of course, they would be acceptable only insofar as the
limitations placed reciprocally on U.S. drones furthered U.S. objectives. And even if hostile states do
not accept norms regulating drone use, the existence of an international
normative framework, and U.S. compliance with that framework, would
preserve Washingtons ability to apply diplomatic pressure . Models for
developing such a framework would be based in existing international
laws that emphasize the principles of necessity, proportionality, and
distinctionto which the United States claims to adhere for its drone
strikesand should be informed by comparable efforts in the realms of cyber and space. In short, a world
characterized by the proliferation of armed dronesused with little
transparency or constraintwould undermine core U.S. interests, such as
preventing armed conflict, promoting human rights, and strengthening
international legal regimes. It would be a world in which targeted killings occur with impunity
against anyone deemed an enemy by states or nonstate actors, without accountability for legal justification,

it would be a world where such

lethal force no longer heeds the borders of sovereign states. Because of
drones inherent advantages over other weapons platforms, states and
nonstate actors would be much more likely to use lethal force against the
United States and its allies.
civilian casualties, and proportionality. Perhaps more troubling,

Economy

**H1-B Visas
Text: The United States federal government should increase the amount of
H1-B visas rewarded in a fiscal year to 195,000.
Increasing h-1b visas to 195,000 solves
Sherk 2009 [James, 5/13. Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for
Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Restricting H-1B Visas Is Bad for Business
and the Economy. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/restricting-h1b-visas-is-bad-for-business-and-the-economy 7/16]//kmc
Unfounded Fears of the H-1B. Current law restricts the H-1B visa to highly skilled foreigners who have an

Each year, the federal government allows 65,000 visas to

be issued, with an additional 20,000 visas for people who have masters degrees or
higher. The visas are granted to individuals who have been offered employment in
the United States. It is valid for three years and can be renewed once for an
additional three years. Many believe H-1B workers merely compete with Americans
looking for work. They are wrong. The U.S. workforce is not a zero-sum
game. One hired H-1B worker does not mean an American is out of a job. In fact, the National Foundation for
American Policy found that employers hired four new American workers for each
new H-1B employee they hire. Additionally, hiring H-1B employees does not lower
the wages of American workers. Current law requires that when employers apply for
H-1B visas, they must attest that they will pay the visa recipient the same wage
they would pay an American with similar skill sets. Rather than limiting the ability of employers
undergraduate degree or higher.

to hire H-1B workers by adding more rules and restrictions, Congress should ensure the federal government

Preventing
companies from hiring foreign workers harms the U.S. economys ability
to rapidly adapt to marketplace demands. Companies must be able to hire
persons best suited to fill positions based on their skill setsnot their nationality.
exercises appropriate oversight in enforcing current laws. Closing the Doors on H-1B.

People have varying skill sets unrelated to their country of residence. Simply requiring companies to hire
Americans means that the company may not get the best qualified person or even the individual with the right set
of professional skills to do the job. The federal government should not be making personnel decisions for
Keeping the Visa Successful. Adding regulations to the H-1B program
would be a serious setback to U.S. visa policy and would only end up hurting the
U.S. economy. Instead, Congress should: Return the cap to the 2001 quota of
195,000 visas a year. Make the program flexible. If the visa quota is met the year before, the cap should

American businesses.

be automatically increased by a preset amount legislated by Congress. In addition, unused visas should be
recaptured and used the following year. Create interoperable databases. Making sure the Department of Labor
and the Department of Homeland Security databases are interoperable will help minimize the number of
fraudulent cases. Increase oversight. The federal government should keep employers who have hired H-1B
employees accountable to the program rules. Random site visits should be conducted to ensure employers are

By improving and expanding the H-1B visa program,

Congress can ensure that American businesses have the workforces
necessary for further economic growth.
following the rules.

H-1B Immigrants key to maintaining many parts of the economy laundry

list of advantages: agriculture, start ups, patents
Mills 15 [Karen, 2/3. Mills is a senior fellow with the Harvard Business School and
was a member of President Obamas Cabinet, serving as Administrator of the U.S.
Small Business Administration from 2009 to 2013. What's missing in America's

immigration debate. http://fortune.com/2015/02/03/whats-missing-in-americasimmigration-debate/ 7/16]//kmc

The immigration debate continues to be driven by politics instead of putting fact-based analysis at the forefront of

In Washington, policy makers should be focused on the critical question of

whether or not steps toward reform will actually grow the American economy and
create jobs and prosperity, both for legal immigrants and native-born job seekers.
The discussion should include substantive considerations like: Immigrants are filling
engineering, computer science and other high-skilled jobs, and in doing
so, helping create other jobs. A recent paper by Harvard Business School
professor William Kerr showed firms that hired immigrants into high-skilled jobs
through programs like the H1B visa program created additional jobs ,
including for non-immigrant workers. The rate of new startups has been declining. A
worrisome trend considering they are part of our economic formula for job creation.
But, data from The Partnership for a New American Economy, and the SBA shows
that immigrants are more than twice as likely to start a business than native-born
citizens. Innovation is a key driver of our future economic growth. Interestingly,
immigrants were involved in more than 75% of the nearly 1,500 patents awarded at
the nations top 10 research universities in 2011. Yet, many foreign-born graduate students of
these universities cant stay in the country once they get their degree. As a result,
they take their ideas to their home countries where some governments have
established funds to help them bring their innovations to market. Foreign-born
workers over-index in maintenance, construction and manufacturing
production jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. They
also play a critical role in our nations agriculture economy. There is
critical demand for this workforce and employers continue to have trouble
finding workers to fill many of these available jobs. A crucial catalyst for the spirit and
our policies.

aspiration that drives the U.S. economy is the fact that throughout our history immigrants have come to the U.S. in
pursuit of the American Dream. And, in doing so, theyve created opportunities for themselves and countless other
Americans.

Avoids the link to politics interest group and bipartisan support pushing
the counter plan
Wallsten 13 [Peter, 3/20. Visas for high-skilled workers could double under
bipartisan Senate plan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/visas-for-highskilled-workers-could-double-under-bipartisan-senate-plan/2013/03/20/8b74c08a9194-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html 7/16]//kmc
The expansion of the visas, known as H1Bs, is one element of

talks among a bipartisan group of

eight senators, whose legislation is expected to serve as the basis for a deal between Congress and the White
House to retool the immigration system. The number of visas available would
approximately double from the current limit of 65,000 per year. The H1B program was
created in 1990 to attract high-skilled workers from around the world, but it has become a way for outsourcing firms
to bring lower-paid employees to the United States. Most of the top 10 employers of H1B visa holders, for instance,
are India-based technology consultancies with large U.S. operations. Those firms often train workers in the United
States before sending them back home to do the same jobs for considerably less money, say critics of the program

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the

bipartisan immigration working group, has been trying to persuade the negotiators
to accept two key restrictions on the visas, according to people familiar with the
talks. One would prevent certain firms that rely heavily on H1B visas from hiring
on the Hill and in the labor movement.

more workers under the program, and the other would require companies to make a
good faith effort, subject to federal oversight, to recruit American workers. But
instead, the group has tentatively agreed to impose stiff fees on some outsourcing companies that hire H1B workers
and to require modest measures to encourage the hiring of Americans, such as advertising the jobs, but with limited
federal oversight. And while Durbin has pushed to increase the lowest wage levels permitted by the visa program,
its likely that only certain firms would be required to pay more. Durbin, who has been a lone voice in the room on
the issue, is likely to back down, according to people familiar with the talks, because he has gotten his way on other
points, such as a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. A Durbin
spokesman declined to comment, stressing that negotiations were continuing into the night Wednesday and that
nothing was final. Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto, a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, said in an interview that the plan could be a

advocates for tech companies

welcomed the developments, describing the still-evolving immigration plan as a
potential watershed moment. Were encouraged, said Scott Corley, executive
director of Compete America, a coalition of companies that includes Intel, Google,
IBM and other tech giants. Explaining why the industry has sought such a big
increase in high-skilled visas and other means to attract workers, Corley said: On
an issue where the politics are so hard, you cant overbuild when you know you
might not get another shot at it for 25 years.
reckless change that may keep Americans from getting good jobs. But

--xt: solves the economy

Visas are key the number of jobs and students that require are visas are
up the CP is a key starting point to solving economy
Baron 6/21 [Ethan, 2015. Why Business Schools Want More H-1B Visas.
http://poetsandquants.com/2015/06/21/why-business-schools-want-more-h-1b-visas/
7/16]//kmc
In the latest round of H-1B visas, awarded by
lottery, U.S. immigration services received 233,000 applications from companies for
the Congressionally mandated 85,000 work permits. Last year, 172,500 applications
were submitted, up significantly from 124,000 a year earlier. Meantime, U.S. schools
have significantly expanded the percentage of international students in
their classrooms so the need for more work visas is greater than ever . At
the University of Virginias Darden School of Business, some 36% of the latest
entering class were born outside the U.S., triple the 12% representation of 20 years
ago. At Duke Universitys Fuqua School of Business, MBA students with non-U.S.
passports now account for 38% of the class, up from only 19% two decades ago. And at
Northwestern Universitys Kellogg School of Management, some 36% of the latest
class is composed of international, compared to only 24% 20 years earlier.
APPLICATIONS SURGE FOR MBAS VISA OF CHOICE

Solves the economy creates jobs and economic competition

Bier 12 [David, 6/17. H1-B Visa Quotas Greatly Restrain Small Business Expansion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/17/h1-b-visa-quotas-greatly-restrainsmall-business-expansion/ 7/16]//kmc
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) announced this week that it had
filled its annual H-1B visa quota for foreign high-skilled workers . The announcement comes
about five months earlier than last year, signaling that U.S. businesses are expanding again. But many companies

This constraint is slowing their

renewed growth, while unfairly disadvantaging small businesses that lack the
resources necessary to navigate Americas complex immigration code. As
Americas technology and service-based economy has expanded over the
last decade, its demand for high-skilled labor has increased greatly . Global
competition requires access to the worlds best talent. Yet during this same period,
Congress has allowed the H-1B quota for high-skilled workers to drop in halffrom
195,000 in 2001 to 85,000 today. In 2006, the quota was tapped in less than two months. In 2008, it
must now wait until next year to attempt to hire needed talent.

vanished in less than a daynearly 125,000 applications were received in just two days. Market-driven demand
grew while government-controlled supply shrank. In

most years, the Government Accountability

Office found last year, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap. This
mismatch is further exacerbated by fees and regulations that prevent businesses, particularly small firms, from

One company estimated the cost of the H-1B and green card process at
$16,000. More than sixty percent of small businesses surveyed by the GAO incurred significant
business costs resulting from petitions denied due to the cap, delays in processing
H-1B petitions, and other costs. H-1B regulations advantage large companies
because they can absorb application costs and afford more qualified
consultants. Complicated forms and regulationsand the imperative of speed and accuracyforce most
businesses to hire experts for $3,000 for a single applicant. Multinational companies surveyed by
the GAO were generally able to hire their preferred candidates because the firms
even applying.

were skilled at navigating the immigration system. This legal inequity places
start-ups and small firms at a disadvantage. Some companies would not want to be
bothered with foreign students because it would require a lawyer to do all the paperwork, Elias Shiu, a professor at
the University of Iowas department of statistics and actuarial science, told The Des Moines Register earlier this
year. International students constitute more than sixty percent of Shius department, like many science,

finding jobs for these highlyqualified workers in the U.S. is almost impossible due to H-1B regulations. Not only can
engineering, and technology departments at other universities. Yet

big players navigate the system better than small firms, they often manage to avoid it completely. Large firms like
Principal can afford to have actuary offices in China and Brazil. Similarly, Microsoft recently opened offices in
Vancouver to make use of Canadas more expeditious immigration system for foreign software designers. Not only
is stimulating off-shoring bad policy, it is unfair to small U.S. competitors who cannot afford offices overseas to
avoid visa constraints. Multinational firms do not always need to leave the U.S. to hire the workers they wantthey
can also use an L-1 visa to bring workers from their foreign offices to a U.S. site for up to seven years, or they can
use a B-1 visa to conduct short-term activities like holding business conferences. While these options are
unavailable to most small firms and start-ups, the best response to such inequality isnt to restrain multinationals,
but to open competition for all American businesses by eliminating H-1B restrictions. Highly-skilled foreign workers
do not take jobsthey make jobs. H-1B applications fell dramatically during the recession because companies use
H-1B visas not to replace Americans during downtimes, but to recruit workers during expansion. A 2009 National

every H-1B request is correlated with five

new jobs at major firms and more than seven jobs at firms with less than
5,000 employees. H-1B restrictions slow this expansion and hurt economic
growth. Immigration quotas and restrictions are fundamentally unfair and stand in the way of Americas future
prosperity. Increasing the H-1B quota would constitute progress . But better yet,
Foundation for American Policy study found that

abolishing the quota system and H-1B constraints entirely would not only allow more highly-skilled workers to come,
but also make Americas immigration system fair for small competitors. Fairer competition would increase
innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation,

benefiting all Americans.

--xt: k2: solve brain drain

Reform key to solve the brain drain
Case et al. 11 [Steve 5/19. Case, CEO of Revolution, John Doerr, Partner, Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers ; Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel Corporation, and Sheryl
Sandberg, COO of Facebook, are members of the Presidents Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness. America needs a 21st century immigration policy.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/19/america-needs-a-21st-centuryimmigration-policy/ 7/16]//kmc
President Obamas recent focus on immigration highlights Americas broken
system and its impact on our economy. Fixing it requires Republicans and
Democrats to show political courage and implement reforms to expand and
strengthen the American economy. As members of the Presidents Council on Jobs and
Competitiveness, we share his deep concern that our nations ability to compete economically is being damaged by

the link between immigration

reform and economic growth may be surprising. To Americas most innovative industries, it is a link
we know is fundamental. The global economy means companies that drive U.S. job
creation and economic growth are in a worldwide competition for talent. While other
countries are aggressively creating policies and incentives to attract a highly
educated workforce, America has stagnated. Once a magnet for the worlds top
minds, America now faces a reverse brain drain and is no longer the first choice
for many entrepreneurs creating new companies and jobs. America needs a progrowth immigration system that works for U.S. workers and employers in
todays global economy. And we need it now. First, we need to invest in homegrown talent that is
the two parties battling over immigration laws and policies. To some,

educated and trained in the critical science, technology, engineering and math fields. The U.S. education system
must be improved, top to bottom, so that our most precious resource our children can compete in the
increasingly global world economy. Statistically our K-12 students are falling farther behind students in Korea, China
and elsewhere in the physical sciences. We can and must do better. Second, the United States must allow
employers to recruit and retain the worlds best brains. We need a pro-growth based green card system to replace

Waiting a decade or more during the

H1B specialty visa and green card process demoralizes the next great American
immigrant Nobel laureate. More of them are returning to their home countries, like
China and India, and driving new scientific breakthroughs and innovations there.
the current system that is plagued with years-long backlogs.

Third, we should staple a green card to every advanced diploma in critical fields to keep foreign-born students
graduating from a U.S. university or college here in America, working for our future. Today foreign nationals account

our
antiquated immigration laws numerically limit the numbers of these individuals, by
the thousands, from entering our country annually . What kind of strategy is it to train the worlds
best and brightest in our great universities and then require them to leave? Americas cutting-edge job
creating industries from computing to biotech rely on immigrant scientists, engineers and
entrepreneurs to remain competitive. And as the President said in his speech, they are responsible for
for 50% of masters degrees and 70% of Ph.D. degrees in electrical and electronic engineering in the U.S. Yet,

founding iconic companies like Google, Yahoo and eBay. According to a Kauffman Foundation study, 40 million jobs
have been created in the past 25 years by high growth U.S. entrepreneurial companies. Of those, according to a
Duke and UC Berkeley report, more than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses launched
between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder. And in 2005, companies created by immigrants produced $52
billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers, so getting this right is paramount. Silicon Valley offers a good
example of the impact foreign nationals make on U.S. innovation and the arduous process companies must go
through to retain them. With 80% of Intel R&D conducted in the U.S., employing people with specific expertise in
U.S. facilities is imperative. Right now, there are software engineers in the UK, who cannot come to work in a U.S.
Intel facility until visas are available in the next fiscal year. And experts in next-generation mobile technology who
must remain in Finland, rather than joining an Intel research and development team in the U.S. At Facebook, Javier

Olivan was instrumental in creating the technology that has translated the site into more than 70 languages,
connecting people and businesses in the U.S. with markets around the world. Despite making a significant
contribution to economic growth, Javier was lucky to be able to stay in this country. The year he applied for an H-1B

U.S. employers must look ahead to

coming talent shortages and plan their workforce needs years in advance.
They need policy certainty from Washington to know they will be able to
hire the very best talent to meet the demands of the global innovation
marketplace. It is time for Congress and the Administration to pass bipartisan immigration reforms. In particular, taking quick action to attract
and retain science and engineering talent is critical to the growth of our
economy. Lets create a pro-growth immigration system that works. Our global
competitiveness should not be a partisan debate, it should be a top American
priority.
visa, there were 150,000 applicants and only 65,000 visas.

aff answers
H-1B is politically unpopular immigration is too polarizing of an issue
Baron 6/21 [Ethan, 2015. Why Business Schools Want More H-1B Visas.
http://poetsandquants.com/2015/06/21/why-business-schools-want-more-h-1b-visas/
7/16]//kmc
Of course,

immigration issues in the U.S. generate highly polarizing debate,

recent allegations that Disney and utility Southern California Edison used
outsourcing companies to replace American workers with foreign H-1B employees
have complicated the politics even more. Democrats join Republicans in unholy
legislative alliances, none of which have so far found success . Major U.S.
and

corporations have also banded together in pressure groups one boasts Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and
Microsoft founder Bill Gates among its leaders, and wants immigration policy changes that will give companies
more access to educated, skilled foreign workers; another group, pushing for similar changes, is led by titans
including former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch but also by Bob Iger, CEO

American workers to train foreign, H-1Bcarrying replacements before being laid off. Im sure there are violators out there,
Piemonte says. But theyre not the companies that are hiring our graduate
students from the United States.
of Disney, a firm now mired in allegations that it forced

No shortage of STEM workers

Eidelson 14 [Josh, 11/24. The Tech Worker Shortage Doesn't Really Exist.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-24/the-tech-worker-shortagedoesnt-really-exist 7/16]//kmc
Along with temporary deportation relief for millions, President Obamas executive action will increase the number of
U.S. college graduates from abroad who can temporarily be hired by U.S. corporations. That hasnt satisfied tech
companies and trade groups, which contend more green cards or guest worker visas are needed to keep tech

But scholars say theres a problem

with that argument: The tech worker shortage doesnt actually exist. Theres no
evidence of any way, shape, or form that theres a shortage in the conventional
sense, says Hal Salzman, a professor of planning and public policy at Rutgers
University. They may not be able to find them at the price they want. But Im not
sure that qualifies as a shortage, any more than my not being able to find a half-priced TV. For a realindustries growing because of a shortage of qualified American workers.

life example of an actual worker shortage, Salzman points to the case of petroleum engineers, where the supply of
workers has failed to keep up with the growth in oil exploration. The result, says Salzman, was just what economists

Employers started offering more money, more people started

becoming petroleum engineers, and the shortage was solved. In contrast, Salzman
would have predicted:

concluded in a paper released last year by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, real IT wages are about the same as

only half of STEM (science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics) college graduates each year get hired into STEM
jobs. We dont dispute the fact at all that Facebook (FB) and Microsoft (MSFT) would
like to have more, cheaper workers, says Salzmans co-author Daniel Kuehn, now a research
associate at the Urban Institute. But that doesnt constitute a shortage. The real issue, say
Salzman and others, is the industrys desire for lower-wage, more-exploitable guest
workers, not a lack of available American staff . It seems pretty clear that the
industry just wants lower-cost labor, Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic
they were in 1999. Further, he and his co-authors found,

and Policy Research, wrote in an e-mail. A 2011 review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the
H-1B visa program, which is what industry groups are lobbying to expand, had fragmented and restricted
oversight that weakened its ostensible labor standards. Many in the tech industry are using it for cheaper,

indentured labor, says Rochester Institute of Technology public policy associate professor Ron Hira, an EPI research
associate and co-author of the book Outsourcing America.

**PRISM Specific CP
Counterplan: The United States federal government should
-reform U.S. intelligence collection law and processes in line
with the Presidents Review Group on Intelligence and
Communications Technologies ,
-create a senior U.S. government position to serve as the
primary contact person and advocate for U.S. industry global
data issues,
-add Germany and France to the Five Eyes intelligence
sharing group,
-elevate the issue of data flows within the global trade bodies;
include data flow issues within existing and future trade
negotiations
-encrypt all user traffic to the extent commercially and
logistically possible,
Solves their perception internal link to data localization as long it is
perceived that privacy is protected, it doesnt matter how effective in
actuality these reforms are
Hill 14, (Jonah Force, Internet Policy Specialist at the US Department of Commerce,
THE GROWTH OF DATA LOCALIZATION POST-SNOWDEN: ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. POLICYMAKERS AND BUSINESS LEADERS)
Recommendations for the U.S. Government 1. Reform U.S. intelligence collection law and
processes in line with the Presidents Review Group on Intelligence and
Communications Technologies120 The primary justification raised in favor of data localization policies is
the need to protect citizens and companies from government surveillance of the like orchestrated by the NSA. While
the U.S. government should not compromise what it perceives as essential national security objectives in the face
of threats to American businesses (especially in light of the hypocrisy involved in some of those threats), it should
nevertheless seriously address the concerns of the international community. Specifically, t he

U.S. can start

by adopting some of the important recommendations of the President Review Group
on Communications and Technologies, in particular, Chapter IV: Reforming Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Directed at Non-United States Person, recommendations
12-15, focusing on reforming section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
such as applying the 1974 Privacy Act to non U.S. persons. These are serious
recommendations, and their implementation ought to go a long way towards reducing (though surely not

Implementation will
demonstrate a willingness on the part of the U.S. government to respect global
opinion and to impose limits on the reach of its intelligence agencies. 2. Create (or
refocus) a senior U.S. government position to serve as the primary contact person
and advocate for U.S. industry global data issues. At present, there is no single
point-person in the U.S. government coordinating data flow issues , or advocating on behalf
eliminating) international concerns over the surveillance policies of the United States.

of the U.S. for freedom of data flows. The head of the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Trade Representative, the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Department of Commerce (importantly, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Services), the Chief Privacy Officer of the NSA,

several individuals within the Department of

State (importantly the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy) as well as many,

are all working on the problem, but largely separately, with inevitably
separate institutional viewpoints and objectives. While multiple individuals and agencies should
many others,

be addressing the issue simultaneously, there is a need for a single coordinating office to track and manage this
vital economic issue. Perhaps an office of Chief Privacy Officer in the U.S. State Department and/or U.S. Trade
Representative could be developed, or the newly-created White House Chief Privacy Officer position could take on
this broader international responsibility. President Obama has suggested, in a speech delivered at the U.S.
Department of Justice on January 17, 2014, that his administration plans to create a new position at the U.S. State
Department to coordinate [American] diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence.121

This new role which has only been vaguely described could also potentially fill
the leadership vacuum within the U.S. government on these issues. However the
reorganization happens, is clear that the current bureaucratic arrangement needs to
be restructured to ensure that the antilocalization outreach strategy is effectively
coordinated and harmonized across the entire U.S. government and among U.S.
industry leaders. 3. Reform and streamline the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process. The cumbersome
MLAT process has proven to be one of the leading motivations behind many localization proposals. In order to
expedite the MLAT process, the Department of Justices should develop an online MLAT submission form, and
devote the resources necessary to respond in a timely fashion, recognizing the urgency of many law enforcement
requirements. In addition, the Department of Justice should (consistent with the reasonable confidentiality
requirements of sound law enforcement) also publish regular government transparency reports, including
breakdowns of number of requests received from different countries, the response provided, the crimes to which
the requests relate, and the time each request required, and should provide clear, public guidance on what
information can be obtained through an MLAT. These reports would not only result in an anticipated speed-up of
response time (no one wants publicly to be shown to be dilatory), but would also demonstrate to foreign law
enforcement personnel that their queries are receiving treatment not meaningfully less prompt than are other

Consider adding Germany (and perhaps France and

other European nations) to the Five Eyes intelligence sharing group, or another
intelligence-sharing organization and agreement. This recommendation may be the most difficult
nations requests of a similar nature.1224.

for the United States government to entertain, because, as we know, intelligence agencies are loathe to share their

the United States

surely recognizes that Germany, France, and other European nations have become
essential partners in a variety U.S. national security endeavors over the past
decade, assisting in national security operations from Afghanistan to Libya, and perhaps most
information, even with sister agencies within their own governments. Nevertheless,

significantly, in anti-terrorism. Yet these nations, and especially Germany (and to a lesser degree, France) have
been especially troubled by the Snowden disclosures, in large part due to the fact that the U.S. is supposed to be an
ally. As Viviane Reding, a European Commission Vice President, lamented (surely disingenuously), Friends and
partners do not spy on each other.123 In response, some U.S. lawmakers have proposed the idea of including
Germany in the privileged five eyes intelligence group, 124 the group of the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand that have agreed to share significant intelligence information. It is a proposal that merits continued

To the
extent that these friendly governments are recipients of significant American
intelligence information, they are likely to accept as credible future American
assurances that their citizens, their leadership and their companies are not the
subject of broad surveillance (or, if they are so subject, the sound security reasons for that surveillance).
5. Elevate the issue of data flows within the global trade bodies; include data flow
issues within existing and future trade negotiations To the extent possible, the U.S. government
discussion, as would the inclusion of France, the Scandinavian nations, Holland, and perhaps others.125

should elevate data localization and global data flow issues within the global trade bodies, including the G8, G20,
APEC, OECD, and WTO. Towards that end, the U.S. should strongly identify data restrictions as a global barrier to

the U.S. should use multilateral trade negotiations,

such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership, and the Trade in Services Agreement, as well as bilateral trade
negotiations, to include provisions on open data flows. 1266. Encourage independent studies on
economic growth and trade. In addition,

the potential economic and security impacts of data localization for the countries considering them, and
disseminate the findings of those studies to key global stakeholders A March 2014 survey by NTT Communications

of over 1000 IT decisionmakers found that ICT decision-makers are broadly in favor of localization measures.127
Part of the reason this may be the case is that too few leaders are aware of the potential negative effects of such
policies. They should be exposed to analyses not tainted by national or industry self-interest. To that end, industry
ought to encourage the production of truly disinterested, peer-reviewed studies of the economic, security, and other
effects of localization, and the dissemination of these studies to key stakeholders around the globe. 7. Work to
reframe the privacy and surveillance discussion to one of security and economics Localization has been debated
since the beginning of Snowdens revelations largely as an answer to privacy and surveillance concerns. Certainly,
there is another narrative worthy of discussion, and to that end industry should work to alter the one-sided nature
of the current discussion by including the issues of cybersecurity, cyber crime, economic integration, and Internet
freedom. For developed countries, messaging to counter localization should focus on the urgent need to combat
cybercrime and improve cyber security,128 the adverse effects on freedom of expression, and interference with the
expansion of Internet-borne commerce at just the time that their economies are emerging from the Great
Recession. These views might resonate within developing countries as well, as would the additional argument that

8. To the extent
commercially and logistically possible, encrypt all user traffic to reassure customers
of the security of their data In order to reassure foreign customers (as well as
American customers for that matter), U.S. technology companies should seek to
encrypt all data traffic. Encrypting information flowing among servers will not make
it impossible for intelligence agencies to snoop on individual users of Internet
services, and it will not have any significant effect on valid subpoenas for data . Still,
widespread use of encryption technology makes mass surveillance more difficult,
whether conducted by governments or other sophisticated hackers, and would
serve to give customers some reason to believe that American firms were sensitive
to their concerns. 9. Expand joint ventures with foreign enterprises, and increase technology sharing,
particularly with companies in developing countries. The calls for localization may be muted if
American technology firms can be seen as supportive of foreign enterprises, and
particularly of the efforts of developing countries to build Internet sectors able to
provide efficient and inexpensive services to their populations. To that end, American
localization could leave them permanently on the poorer side of the digital divide.

companies ought to use some of their resources to launch joint ventures with foreign companies, especially

This process will inevitably entail some technology

transfers with the attendant risk of the loss of proprietary intellectual property, but
the mitigation of that risk is largely within the control of the sharing company , unlike
the political risks involved in data localization. While joint ventures and technology sharing would
be especially welcome in developing countries (and thus turn down the heat
generated by their political elites), ventures with the companies of developed
countries might also serve the anti-localization cause would Deutsche Telekom be so eager to
companies in the developing world.

exclude American companies if it would profit more immediately, and perhaps more securely, as a partner, rather
than as a competitor, of its American counterparts?

Federalism CP

**1nc
Text: The USFG should substantially reduce its aid directed to
state governments and decrease its regulation of state
commerce.
Federal aid programs to states increases federalism- it forces
state governments to spend more to resolve new problems and
limits the ways states can use the funds
Edwards 13 (Chris Edwards. Director of tax policy studies at Cato Fiscal
Federalism. June 2013. P. 3-4.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sites/downsizinggovernment.org/files/pdf/fisc
al-federalism_0.pdf)//EMerz
The theory behind grants-in-aid is that the federal government can create subsidy
programs in the national interest to efficiently solve local problem s. The belief is that
policymakers can dispassionately allocate large sums of money across hundreds of activities based on a rational

The federal aid system does not work that way in practice .
Most federal politicians are not inclined to pursue broad, national goals, but are
consumed by the competitive scramble to secure subsidies for their states. At the same
time, federal aid stimulates overspending by state governments and creates
a web of top-down rules that destroy state innovation. At all levels of the aid system,
the focus is on maximizing the money spent and regulatory compliance,
not on delivering quality services. The following are eight reasons why the federal aid system
plan designed in Washington.

doesnt make any economic or practical sense and ought to be downsized or eliminated. 1. No magical source of
federal funds. Aid supporters bemoan the lack of resources at the state level and believe that Uncle Sam has

every dollar of federal aid sent to the states is

ultimately taken from federal taxpayers who live in the 50 states. Its true that the federal
endlessly deep pockets to help out. But

government has a greater ability to run deficits than state governments, but thats an argument against the aid
system not in favor of it. By moving the funding of state activities up to the federal level, t he

aid system has

tilted American government toward unsustainable deficit financing . 2. Grants spur
wasteful spending. The basic incentive structure of aid programs encourages
overspending by federal and state policymakers. One reason is that policymakers at both levels
can claim credit for spending on a program, while relying on the other level of government to collect part of the tax

Another cause of overspending is that federal policymakers create program

structures, such as matching, that prompt the states to increase spending . A typical
bill.

match is 50 percent, which means that for every $2 million a state expands a program, the federal government
chips in $1 million. Matching reduces the price of states added spending, thus prompting them to expand
programs. Most federal aid is for programs that have matching requirements, with Medicaid being the largest such
program. One way to reduce spending incentives is to convert open-ended matching grants to block grants. Block
grants provide a fixed sum to states and give them flexibility on program design. The best example of such a reform
was the 1996 welfare overhaul, which turned Aid to Families with Dependent Children (an open-ended matching
grant) into TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (a lump-sum block grant). Similar block grant reforms should be
pursued for Medicaid and other programs. Converting programs to block grants would reduce incentives for states
to overspend, and it would make it easier for Congress to cut federal spending in the future. 3.Aid allocation doesnt
match any consistent idea of need. Supporters of federal grants assume that funding can be optimally distributed to
those activities and states with the greatest needs. But even if such redistribution was a good idea, the aid system
has never worked that way in practice.A 1940 article in Congressional Quarterly lamented: The grants-in-aid
system in the United States has developed in a haphazard fashion. Particular services have been singled out for
subsidy at the behest of pressure groups, and little attention has been given to national and state interests as a
whole.22And a 1981 report by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations concluded that federal

grant-in-aid programs have never reflected any consistent or coherent

interpretation of national needs. 23 Its the same situation today. With highway aid, for
example, some states with greater needs due to growing populationssuch as
Texasconsistently get the short end of the stick on funding. 24 Even if funds were
allocated to the states based on need, state-level decisions can nullify federal
efforts. For example, the largest education grant program, Title I, is supposed to target aid to the poorest school
districts. But evidence indicates that state and local governments use Title I funds to displace their own funding of
poor schools, thus making poor schools no further ahead than without federal aid.25 4. Grants reduce state policy
diversity.

Federal grants reduce state diversity and innovation because they

come with one-size-fiscal mandates. A good example was the 55-mile-per-hour national speed
limit, which was enforced between 1974 and 1995 by federal threats of withdrawing highway grant money. It never
made sense that the same speed should be imposed in uncongested rural states and congested urban states, and
Congress finally listened to motorists and repealed the law. Another example of top-down federal rules is the No
Child Left Behind education law of 2002. To receive NCLB grant funding, the law required states to meet federal
mandates, such as ensuring that all teachers were highly qualified, that Spanish-language versions of tests be
administered, and that certain children be tutored after school. Many states passed resolutions attacking NCLB for

The Davis-Bacon labor rules are another example of harmful

regulations tied to federal aid. State public works projects that receive federal aid
must pay workers prevailing wages. Since that generally interpreted to mean higher union-level
wages, Davis-Bacon rules increase construction costs on government investments,
such as highway projects. 5. Grant regulations breed bureaucracy. Federal aid is not a costless injection of
funding to the states. Federal taxpayers pay the direct costs of the grants, but taxpayers
at all levels of government are burdened by the costly bureaucracy needed to
support the system. The aid system engulfs government workers with unproductive activities such as
proposal writing, program reporting, regulatory compliance, auditing, and litigation . Many of the 16
million people employed by state and local governments must deal with
complex federal regulations related to hundreds of aid programs. There are
undermining states rights.

specific rules for each program, which may be hundreds or even thousands of pages in length. There are
crosscutting requirements, which are provisions that apply across aid programs, such as labor market rules.And
there are crossover sanctions, which are the penalties imposed on the states if they dont meet federal

Each of the more than 1,100 aid programs have different rules, and the
activities funded by the programs often overlap, which causes more confusion. For
requirements.

example, state and local officials deal with 16 different federal programs that fund first responders, such as

That tangle of programs not only creates a lot of paperwork, it

may also lead to more fragmented planning of disaster response . 6. Grants
firefighters.26

cause policymaking overload. One consequence of the large aid system is that the time spent by federal politicians
on state and local issues takes away from their focus on truly national issues. In the years after 9/11, for example,
investigations revealed that most members of the House and Senate intelligence committees did not bother, or did
not have time, to read crucial intelligence reports.27 Many of these members were probably spending their time
trying to steer budget monies toward local activities in their home states. The federal involvement in hundreds of
nonfederal policy areas overloads Washingtons policy agenda. President Calvin Coolidge was right in 1925 when he
argued that aid to the states should be cut because it was encumbering the national government beyond its
wisdom to comprehend, or its ability to administer its proper roles.28 7.

Grants make government

responsibilities unclear. The three layers of government in the United States no longer resemble the
tidy layer cake that existed in the 19th century. Instead, they are like a jumbled marble cake with responsibilities
fragmented across multiple layers. Federal aid has made it difficult for citizens to figure out which level of
government is responsible for particular policy outcomes. All three levels of government play big roles in such areas

politicians have
become skilled at pointing fingers of blame at other levels of government, as was
evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. When every government is responsible
as transportation and education, thus making accountability difficult. To make matters worse,

for an activity, no government is responsible.

--xt: solvency
The federal government uses state funding to extend its power
further by attaching conditions to the aid- that increases
federalism- only cutting funding can solve
Waters 15 (Jim Waters. President of the Bluegrass Institute. He cites topic
experts in the card. Bluegrass Beacon: The Seduction of States. April 10, 2015.
http://www.bipps.org/tag/federal-funding-to-states/)//EMerz
When our emotions are engaged, we often have trouble seeing things as they are, Robert Greene writes in his

When the federal

government waves big money in front of state lawmakers especially for sexy
projects that politicians can rush back to their districts, wave big checks and claim
credit for its almost impossible for policymakers from a poor state like Kentucky not to
feel the euphoria and gladly accept it. Federal dollars now comprise more than 35 percent of Kentuckys
international bestseller The Art of Seduction. It happens frequently with politicians.

general revenues. More than $8 billion of the $23 billion that Kentucky collected in general revenues in 2013 came
from Washington. According to State Budget Solutions, only four states received more federal-aid dollars than

Nationwide spending on federal grants to states and local governments has

grown from $24 billion in 1970 to $640 billion today. In 2010, there were 1,100 different grants
Kentucky.

totaling $608.4 billion 17 percent of the entire federal budget waved in front of states. Most troublesome is the

The
number of state depending on the federal government for at least one-third of their
total revenues has more than doubled from 11 in 2001 to 24 states in 2012 to 30 states in 2013.
rapid growth weve seen in federal grants-in-aid spending in states just since the turn of this century.

Only nine states have not increased their dependency on federal-government revenues since 2001. Dont be fooled
into thinking that Washington is just filled with benevolent betters who simply want states to have resources to

An increase in federal funding results in a corresponding

decrease in state and local control while threatening the states long-run
autonomy, writes Washington Examiner commentator David Freddoso. The reason is that with f ederal
patronage comes federal leverage. Perhaps no more blatant example of this
occurred when the Obama administration threatened to cut off all federal matching
funds if states didnt expand their Medicaid programs. While that particular scheme was struck
spend as they see fit.

down by the Supreme Court, the courts dismayingly have upheld the right of Congress to wave federal dollars to
get states to submit to its authority even when such power is completely outside the feds constitutional purview.
Congress may achieve by seduction what it has no power to compel directly, James L. Buckley writes in his new
book Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States and Empowering the People. In 1987, for example, the
high court in South Dakota v. Dole upheld the constitutionality of withholding federal funds from states whose legal
drinking age did not conform to what Washington wanted. The courts majority completely ignored limits on federal
power and the Ninth and Tenth amendments which place a majority of authority in states hands and instead
ruled that the Constitutions general welfare clause essentially invites the federal government to seduce states
with its money. However, if the spending power is to be limited only by Congress notion of the general welfare,

the reality is that the Spending Clause gives power to the Congress to become
a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are selfimposed, Justice Sandra Day OConnor wrote in her Dole dissent. This was not the Framers plan and it is not
the meaning of the Spending Clause. The debate here is not about whether establishing a legal drinking
age, education al standards, requiring seatbelts or myriad other policies forced upon states by Washington are good

about which scope of authority the feds or state and local

governments is most constitutionally appropriate in which to enact such policies,
or bad ideas. Rather, its

and whether Washingtons use of seduction to get its way is acceptable.

State dependence on federal assistance is increasing rapidlythat leaves states at the hands of federal power
Freddoso 14 (David Freddoso. American political conservative commentator,
journalist, and author. Exography: State government dependence on federal
funding growing at alarming rate. April 15, 2014.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-government-dependence-on-federalfunding-growing-at-alarming-rate/article/2547209)//EMerz
Only 11 states depended on the federal government for more than one-third of their total revenues in 2001. By

State-by-state data from the U.S. Census

Bureau, compiled by the State Budget Solutions nonprofit, illustrates the trend of
increasing state dependence on federal financial assistance. Forty-one of the 50 states have
2012, 24 states found themselves in this situation.

become more dependent on the federal government since 2001 with federal dollars accounting for an increasing
share of their total revenues. This trend of increased state dependency on Washington reduces state and local
control, while threatening the states' long-run autonomy.

The reason is that with federal patronage

comes federal leverage.

The original Obamacare plan, for example, was to force states to expand Medicaid
by threatening them with loss of all federal matching Medicaid funds if they refused. Although that particular

state governments hate to turn down

revenue, and federal dollars have strings attached that force states either
to operate as Washington prefers or lose the money. This problem is
exacerbated by the federal government's control of the currency and ability to
borrow virtually unlimited amounts of money. No state can print money, and most states must
balance their annual or biennial budgets. States that depend on federal funds are also
vulnerable when Washington cuts programs. Below is a look at the five states whose financial
scheme was struck down by the Supreme Court,

dependency on Washington grew the most between 2001 and 2012. Keep in mind that this is not merely a measure
of federal dollars spent in any particular state, but rather a look at the share of federal money making up a state's
overall budget, and how fast that share has grown since 2001. The federal money that goes to states -- known
officially as "intra-governmental revenue" -- includes everything from one-time stimulus and disaster grants to
highway funds and federal contributions to state-run welfare programs. Also note that some states with lower taxes
and smaller governments will appear to be more dependent because federally funded programs necessarily
comprise bigger portions of their budgets.

Aff Answers
Federal aid to states is key to preventing economic collapse
and funding necessary programs that states cant- states are
not allowed to have deficits
Economic & Financial Weekly 10 (Economic & Financial Weekly. Desperate
States Need Federal Aid. August 19,, 2010. P. 3.
http://research.handelsbanken.se/Attachments/9844/Economic%20&%20Financial
%20Weekly%2020%20august%202010.pdf)//EMerz
Desperate state governments need more federal aid. State and local government spending has
decreased by more than 2 percent since the beginning of the recession due to balanced budget laws. The

state tax expenditure tends to lag economic activity by

approximately two years. We believe that existing federal support programmes to
states are too small to eliminate the risk of a double dip, and expect more to come
in the future. The rules governing public expenditure are very different at the federal and state levels. The
federal government is free to run budget deficits as long as they are accepted by
Congress, whereas governments in almost all states have to comply with balanced
budget laws preventing a fiscal expansion . The federal fiscal response to the recession has been
contraction is likely not over yet, as

very expansionary, raising federal non-defence expenditure by around 11 percent; defence expenditure has also

State and local

government expenditure, on the other hand, has declined by slightly more than 2 percent. Moreover,
risen dramatically, but this is likely mostly due to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

total public expenditure has increased by slightly more than 2 percent since the beginning of the recession in
December of 2007. Normally, state savings do not have to be exactly zero, as capital investment is not typically

debt service payments on bonds used to

finance capital projects are generally made out of operating budgets and thus
compete with Medicaid and other high-priority programmes, w hich may deter
state governments from undertaking new infrastructure projects. Presently,
subject to balanced budget requirements. However,

state and fiscal expenditure constitutes 58 percent of total public expenditure, with the balance made up by federal
expenditure. Most federal spending is on defense, which constitutes 28 percent of total public spending, leaving
only 14 percent of total public spending for federal non-defense expenditure.

States already lack funding- cutting it more hurts the poorest

populations
Hart 11 (Alexander C. Hart. Reporter-researcher at The New Republic. The Case for
More Federal Aid. February 15, 2011.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/economy/83480/budget-obama-state-aidstimulus)//EMerz
While the draconian changes under consideration in many states are a sad legacy of the economic downturn, their
sheer magnitude represents a failure of the federal government: From Hill Republicans to President Obama,

officials in Washington are proposing new budgets that wouldnt do nearly enough
to assist the states. There is no denying that states budget problems are severe .
Arizona is short about $1.2 billion, around 13 percent of its 2011 budget. Illinois faces a $15
billion gap, an astonishing 44.9 percent of its 2011 budget. Minnesota is forecasting a $6.2 billion
hole, about a sixth of the states two-year budget. And California is grappling with the nations
largest deficit$25.4 billion, about 30 percent of what the state spent the year before .
All in all, 44 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls
totaling $125 billion for fiscal year 2012, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Thats
only slightly less than the entire budget of New York. States are facing these gaps largely because tax revenues are

well below historical normsTexas, for example, is projected to collect $72 billion in fiscal 2012 and 2013, down
from $87 billion in the two years that preceded itand the bad economy requires governments to support more
people with unemployment and Medicaid benefits. Whats more, balanced-budget provisionsunlike the federal

almost all states are forbidden from running deficits also mean states cant just
states have
proposed again slashing their spending, sharply raising tax rates, or a combination
thereof. The effects, unsurprisingly, could be devastating. In Arizona, if Governor Jan Brewers budget is enacted,
280,000 poor people will lose their Medicaid benefits. In Texas , one budget under
discussion would lay off 9,600 state workers, eliminate financial aid for 60,000 college
students, end vocational rehabilitation for about 7,000 disabled Texans, and slash alreadygovernment,

borrow money while they wait for the economy to recover. So, as they have in recent years,

skimpy Medicaid reimbursement rates by 10 percent.

Hege CPs

**Seabasing 1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should develop
and implement a mobile Sea Basing naval capability aimed at
ensuring adequate United States forward deployment and
power projection capabilities.
Seabasing solves hegemonyallows rapid deployment and
global deterrence
Perry 9Michael is a US Navy Commander (IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER
GENERATION 2009 Lexis Nexus)//JLee

Seabasing supports numerous aspects of Americas National Securit y, Defense and

Military Strategies. This is best summarized by President George W. Bush recently declaring that the U.S. is

joint sea bases that will allow our forces to strike from floating platforms
close to the action, instead of being dependent on land bases far from the fight . 36
In particular, U.S. National Defense Strategy relies upon the ability to rapidly deploy and
redeploy forces as the keystone of U.S. National Military Strategy.37 Seabasing
facilitates rapidly assembling and projecting the forces required to address any
traditional, irregular, catastrophic and/or disruptive challenge and denies the sanctuary
needed to plan attacks against the U.S. and develop w eapons of mass destruction. 38 This
directly addresses national objectives regarding strategic access to retain
freedom of action, strengthening alliances and partnerships and establishing favorable security
conditions.39 Thus, Seabasing reassures our allies, helps deter and defeat potential
adversaries, maximizes use of the global commons of the high seas, and ensures
developing

timely generation and deployment of military forces throughout the world. 40 This approach to force design and
planning focuses

less on a specific adversary and more on flexibly responding to how

an adversary might fight at a nearly unlimited number of locations.41 Thus, the extremely flexible
capabilities of Seabasing are ideally aligned with the extremely flexible requirements of the
National Security, Defense and Military Strategies of the United States.

--xt: Solves Hegemony

Leverages our best military asset to boost flexibility and
reduce response times
Perry 9Michael is a US Navy Commander (IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER
GENERATION 2009 Lexis Nexus)//JLee
The rise of the Soviet Navy during the Cold War presented a new peer competitor and slowed development of sea

the fall of the Soviet Union has renewed

interest in Seabasing. 3 Once again, the U.S. lacks a peer competitor on
the high seas and must reconsider its relevance to national security . The
based support of land power generation. However,

primary difference is that Huntingtons advice has become even more relevant and important. In particular,

Seabasing supports the National Security Strategies of the U.S. with

mobile operational and logistics platforms that help offset the dramatic
decline in U.S. access to overseas bases. These national security strategies
require rapid access to potential Joint Operating Areas and deployment of
follow-on forces as necessary to deter potential aggressors and execute
and reinforce U.S. Foreign Policy. In response, Sebasing allows the U.S. Navy to
project military power on short notice anywhere in the globe either
unilaterally or in support of Joint and combined operations. This eliminates
the need to support marginally democratic regimes for fear of losing
access to overseas bases or forcibly seize or establish marginally useful
expeditionary air and sea ports. Rather, Joint Force Commanders can apply force
directly to an objective at the time and place of their choosing from the
relative safety of the high seas As a result, Seabasing has become a Joint
Integrating Concept of great importance to all aspects of the U.S.
Department of Defense. Specifically, Sebasing forms one of the Pillars of the
Sea Power 21 strategy to evolve the U.S. Navy from a blue-water, warat-sea force to a global joint operations force, which is capable of
confronting regional and transnational dangers on land as well as sea. 4
Similarly, Seabasing is essential to transforming the U.S. Army and Air Force
to a more responsive and truly joint force. Yet, over 50 years after Huntington first
described its importance, the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense are still struggling to clearly define the goals
and objectives of Seabasing and overcome the mythology and misunderstanding that has stifled its
development.5

**Compensation CP
Text: The Department of Defense must reduce its civilian
payroll expenses using furloughs, reform its compensation
system by using the preference-based benefits optimization
approach, and reexamine the size and structure of the
Department of Defense civilian workforce.
Solves Hegemony and has bipartisan support
Adams et al. 13Gordon is a Professor in the US Foreign Policy Program at the School of
International Service, American University. He is also a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson
Center. He was a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholar David Barno,
Lieutenant General USA (Ret.), Center for a New American Security Nora Bensahel, Center
for a New American Security David Berteau, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Barry Blechman, Stimson Center Shawn Brimley, Center for a New American Security
Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise
Institute Paul Eaton, Major General USA (Ret.), National Security Network Eric Edelman,
Foreign Policy Initiative Nathan Freier, Center for Strategic and International Studies Mark
Gunzinger, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Christopher Griffin, Foreign
Policy Initiative Todd Harrison, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Lawrence
Korb, Center for American Progress Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments Maren Leed, Center for Strategic and International Studies Clark Murdock,
Center for Strategic and International Studies Michael OHanlon, Brookings Institution
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute Russell Rumbaugh, Stimson Center Jim Thomas, Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Kim Wincup, Center for Strategic and International
Studies Robert Work, Center for a New American Security Dov Zakheim, Center for Strategic
and International Studies ( Consensus on defense reforms June 3, 2013
http://www.aei.org/publication/consensus-on-defense-reforms/)//JLee

A striking bipartisan consensus exists today across the think tank community on the need
for Pentagon and Congressional leaders to address the growing imbalances within the defense budget that threaten

It is our shared belief that the

Department of Defense urgently needs to close excess bases and facilities,
reexamine the size and structure of the DoD civilian workforce, and reform
military compensation. While we do not all agree on the best approach to reform in each case, we
agree that if these issues are not addressed, they will gradually consume the
defense budget from within. This will leave a smaller share of the budget
to pay for the manning, training and equipping of our armed forces that
make the U.S. military second to none. There is no shortage of useful ideas on how to begin
the health and long-term viability of America's volunteer military.

addressing these pressing matters. The challenge has been getting Congress and the administration to admit
change is required and take action. For example, many in Congress are understandably fearful of repeating the
mistakes of the most recent round of base closures in 2005. This round of closures was an anomaly in many
respects because it occurred during a period of growth in defense spending and emphasized moving and
consolidating facilities instead of outright closures. Consequently, DoD's inventory of buildings only fell from 2.4
billion square feet to 2.3 billion roughly 85 percent of which is within the United States. This did not yield the kind
of historical savings previous rounds of base closures have brought the taxpayer. Yet by DoD's own estimates, it
currently pays to maintain some 20 percent excess capacity in its infrastructureresources that could be better
used to sustain our military muscle. To its credit, the administration has asked Congress to initiate another round of

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle

should partner with the Pentagon to identify the true scale of excess
closures to reduce this excess capacity.

capacity and then work expeditiously to better match the Department's

vast network of facilities to its shrinking force. The size and structure of
the civilian workforce is another area in need of careful examination and
restructuring that Pentagon leadership has been reluctant to address. From 2001 to 2012, the active duty military
grew by just 3.4 percent. Yet over the same timeframe the number of civilian defense employees grew by 17
percent, an increase five times greater than the armed forces. While this large workforce supports essential
missions of the Department and warfighter, its growth over the past decade has, by and large, been unchecked and

DoD civilians have grown by ten percent, but it

is unclear if that growth was appropriately matched to the changing needs
of a downsizing military and shifting strategy. This is a critical unanswered question for
imbalanced. In the last four years alone,

policymakers since DoD civilians are directly employed by the government, consuming $74 billion of the annual

DoD must reduce its civilian payroll expenses in

2013 using furloughs, but furloughs are merely a temporary means of
reducing costs. When the new fiscal year begins on October 1, DoD will still have more civilian employees
defense budget. Under sequestration,

than it can afford and quite possibly more than it needs. It is past time for the Pentagon to rightsize this workforce

we all agree on the

need for a comprehensive evaluation and modernization of the military
compensation system. This system has remained essentially unchanged for forty
and make permanent reductions in a thoughtful and targeted manner. Finally,

years, yet America's highly-mobile youth expect and value various forms of compensation differently today. Better
meeting the needs of a 21st century workforce should be the driving force behind reform. But cost should be a
consideration, as should the outdated forms of payment for the 80 percent of service members who serve less than
a full 20-year career. From FY 2001 to FY 2012, the compensation cost per active duty service member grew 56
percent, adjusting for inflation, or a rate of 4.1 percent annually.

DoD has proposed many

incremental changes to the compensation system over the past five years to reduce this
rate of growth, but each time Congress has largely rejected DoD's proposals . Yet
if Congress fails to curb the growth in military compensation costs , they
will continue to grow as the defense budget shrinks, crowding out funds
needed for training, readiness and for the replacement of worn out
equipment. Congress took a modest step forward on this issue in 2012 by establishing a bipartisan
commission to examine the military compensation system but stopped short of requiring itself to act on the
commission's recommendations. To make meaningful progress on this issue, leaders of both parties should, at a
minimum, commit to bringing the recommendations of this commission to a vote in both chambers. None of these

reforms will be easy, painless, or popular. But they are absolutely essential to maintaining a
strong national defense over the long term. These smart and responsible initiatives
should be undertaken by Pentagon and Congressional leaders regardless of the level of defense spending. While
these reforms are necessary, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the fiscal and strategic challenges the
military currently faces. Those of us who have joined together in support of these efforts find ourselves with
differing views on many other issues, including the proper level of defense spending and how that money can best

we are all in strong agreement on the need to pursue these key

reforms for a transforming military. To paraphrase President Eisenhower, every unnecessary
be allocated. But

base that remains open, every excess civilian employee that remains on the payroll, and every mis-targeted dollar
of military compensation signifies, in the final sense, a theft from both the training and equipping of our young men
and women in uniform and, ultimately, the security of our citizens.

Obama administration to act.

It is time for Congress and the

Indefinite Detention CP

**Release or Trial 1NC

The United States federal government should either grant a
habeas trial to prisoners within a reasonable time or granting
them release.
The CP guarantees that
Chow 2011 [Samuel [JD @ Cardozo]; The Kiyemba Paradox: Creating a Judicial
Framework to Eradicate Indefinite, Unlawful Executive Detentions; 19 Cardozo J. Int'l
& Comp. L. 775; kdf)
This Note examines the availability of habeas review in executive terrorist
detentions. Specifically, the scope of habeas is examined in light of recent
interpretations of the judicial branch's ability , or lack thereof, to order release as a
remedy. Courts have a rightful place in the foreign relations debate and recent detainee cases point
to habeas review as a means to exercise that role . n41 For habeas review to be
meaningful, the ability to order functional release, or release where the detainees
are no longer being physically detained, must be available . The restraints Munaf has placed
on functional release are not problematic so long as the detainees' liberty interests are adequately accounted for.
This Note will argue that Kiyemba poses the archetypal situation where detainees have been unlawfully held for an
unreasonable length of time, eroding that liberty interest.

If release-plus is necessary to effectuate

functional release under these conditions, courts must have the authority to grant it
- even if those circumstances only occur in a limited class of cases. Indeed, both historical evidence of the judicial
branch's role in such circumstances and the Zadvydas v. Davis n42 line of cases has already answered the question
of what balance must be struck between the liberty interests of a detainee held unlawfully and the executive

Limits must be placed on how long a detainee may be held

and the liberty interest, under circumstances where the detention has become
unreasonably lengthy, must win out. n43 Functional release, therefore, must apply when
unlawful detentions reach a point where they can be characterized as unreasonable.
immigration prerogative.

Part II examines the historical evolution of habeas corpus and demonstrates that its significance as a judicial
remedy depends on the courts' ability to order a detainee's functional release. Part III [*782] introduces the
contemporary application and scope of habeas corpus in the context of executive terrorist detentions. Part IV
examines the application of immigration paradigms to habeas jurisprudence. Part V argues, based on the Kiyemba

the courts' role in reviewing such detention cases is substantially

diminished if they are unable to meaningfully offer release as a remedy for unlawful
detentions. Ultimately, this Note concludes that under particular circumstances, the courts must have
the authority to order release into the United States because the availability of
release as a remedy is an essential element of habeas corpus . Furthermore, if the availability
paradox, that

of habeas review is constitutionally-guaranteed, then as a general rule, the availability of release as a remedy must
also be guaranteed. This Note will show that these propositions do not, contrary to what the government argued in
Kiyemba, run counter to current understandings of the executive immigration authority.

--xt Solves deference

The CP will create a restriction on the presidents power
Chow 2011 [Samuel [JD @ Cardozo]; The Kiyemba Paradox: Creating a Judicial
Framework to Eradicate Indefinite, Unlawful Executive Detentions; 19 Cardozo J. Int'l
& Comp. L. 775; kdf)
The Kiyemba petitioners were seventeen Uighurs from China's Xinjiang Province who had traveled to Afghanistan
and then to Pakistan prior to September 11, 2001. n124 They were subsequently captured by United States military
in Pakistan during its military campaign in Afghanistan. n125 All seventeen had been held in Guantanamo Bay since
2002 on CSRT determinations made in 2004 that they were enemy combatants. n126 After Parhat v. Gates, n127
the government retracted that determination. n128 There, the D.C. Circuit Court determined that there was
insufficient evidence linking the petitioner, Huzaifa Parhat, to the ETIM. n129 In fact, the court acknowledged that
even if it had determined that Parhat was affiliated with the ETIM, that determination would be insufficient to
sustain an enemy combatant status in light of the unreliability of the evidence linking the group to al Qaeda or the
Taliban. n130 This finding was subsequently applied to all the [*794] Kiyemba petitioners. n131 Following Parhat,

In Kiyemba, the government

admitted that it no longer had a legal basis to hold the Uighurs. n133 Indeed, the D.C.
Circuit Court agreed that the Uighurs may be entitled to release based on their habeas petition. n134 However,
it also held that it did not have the authority to release the detainees into the United
States nor could it overturn the government's transfer determinations . n135 This
the government conceded that the Uighurs' detention was unlawful. n132

conclusion was based on the understanding that the court had no authority to intrude on the Executive's
immigration authority, n136 which effectively precluded the court's ability to provide a meaningful remedy for
release. The Uighurs sought release into the United States because the United States government could not legally
return them to their home country of China on the basis of a high likelihood of torture upon their return. n137
Additionally, despite the Executive's attempts to find an alternative asylum destination, no other third-party
countries were willing to receive them. n138 Political pressure from the Chinese government n139 and the
Executive's prior [*795] determination that the Uighurs were enemy combatants n140 may have contributed to the
government's inability to resettle them. After the D.C. Circuit Court issued its opinion and while the petition for
certiorari was pending, the Executive expressly recognized the troubling scenario that the continued detention of
the Kiyemba petitioners posed. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates concluded that it was "difficult for the State
Department to make the argument to other countries they should take these people that we have deemed, in this
case, not to be dangerous, if we won't take any of them ourselves." n141 Indeed, the Executive was poised to send
as many as seven of the petitioners to the United States in 2009. n142 However, in response to the threat of such

Congress attached a rider to the Supplemental Appropriations Act which

prevented the use of defense funds to release any Guantanamo detainees into the
United States. n143 Congress also passed two additional pieces of legislation
restricting the ability of Guantanamo detainees to enter the United States. n144 The
National Defense Authorization Act n145 granted Congress a substantial degree of
control over such releases and a spending provision banned the Department of
Homeland Security from effectuating such release . n146 The detainees' hope for release,
action,

therefore, turned again on the pending petition for certiorari. By the time the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
Kiyemba on October 2009, ten of the seventeen petitioners had been [*796] granted refuge and transferred; four to
Bermuda and six to Palau. n147 The offer extended by Palau was qualified as being an offer for temporary
relocation pending permanent resettlement without the hope of obtaining citizenship. n148 Six of the remaining
seven petitioners were also given the opportunity to transfer to Palau, but declined. n149 Only one petitioner, Arkin
Mahmud, had not received an offer of refuge from any country, prompting his brother and the five other petitioners
to reject the offer from Palau. n150 A favorable decision by the Supreme Court seemed to be Arkin Mahmud's only
hope of escaping his unlawful detention, until the Swiss government announced it would provide refuge for both
Mahmud and his brother. n151 The Supreme Court, deciding that the underlying facts of the case had changed
because all of the petitioners had now received at least one offer of resettlement, vacated the D.C. Circuit Court
decision and remanded the case to allow the lower courts to make a determination in the first instance. n152 The
D.C. Circuit Court promptly reinstated its original decision, holding that regardless of any settlement offers (of lack
thereof), the petitioners had "no right to be released into the United States." n153 The remaining five petitioners,
still detained at Guantanamo, have since filed a second petition for writ of certiorari. n154 The facts in Munaf and
Kiyemba are vastly different. Yet, both sets of petitioners sought release-plus, and in both circumstances, the "plus"
they sought was release into the United States. The courts' reasoning for refusing such a remedy, however, is

entirely distinguishable in each respective case. In Munaf, the immigration issue faced by the Kiyemba petitioners
was absent since both Munaf petitioners had been American citizens. n155 In that case, denial of the "plus" factor
turned on the fact that the petitioners were attempting to ride roughshod over an international obligation the
United States had to hand over [*797] individuals who had committed crimes on Iraqi soil to Iraqi officials, n156 an

the outcomes in Munaf and Kiyemba

point to the overarching principle that courts may have the legal authority to hear a
habeas petition, but are limited as to the allocation of relief. A desirable remedy may not be
analogous element that did not exist in Kiyemba. Ultimately,

appropriate, particularly when the remedy sought is release-plus. However, it is unlikely that Munaf intended to
preclude release-plus in all circumstances because doing so could potentially create unconstitutional suspension.

the next issue that must be confronted is determining when

restrictions on the effectiveness of release are appropriate and when they are not .
With this in mind,

Munaf serves as an example of the former, where limits on release are appropriate. Kiyemba, arguably, serves as
an example of when such limits are inappropriate. IV. Immigration in Habeas Jurisprudence It is well-established
that the availability of habeas in the context of executive detentions is its most significant role. n157 "At its
historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention,

A remedy is typically granted

where the detention is unlawful; for executive detentions, that remedy has
historically meant release. n159 Munaf's relevance after Boumediene concerned the Supreme Court's
and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest." n158

interpretation of "release." While Munaf is factually different from Kiyemba, it provided a window into the
government's interpretation of what constitutes release. Munaf is also instructive in determining, ultimately, how
release should be viewed as a constitutional matter. The historical development of habeas corpus and the holding

release is imperative to maintain the integrity of the

writ n160 and second, that habeas corpus [*798] is a constitutionally-guaranteed right for certain
in Boumediene demonstrated first, that

individuals. n161 These two principles support the argument that efforts to limit the availability of release as a
habeas remedy should, in the very least, require a high degree of scrutiny. Indeed, in Boumediene, Justice Kennedy
noted that there are instances of unlawful detention where release may not be appropriate. n162 Therefore, in a
limited set of circumstances the grant of release may not be constitutionally required. Munaf suggested that
requests for release-plus go beyond what the Constitution requires. In Kiyemba, the government successfully
argued that the detainees should be denied release into the United States based on Munaf's release-plus analysis.
n163 However, preclusion of functional release is arguably inappropriate there. In fact, this understanding of
release-plus in Kiyemba may have been an unconstitutional reading of the immigration laws that the court had
relied on. The government's argument in Kiyemba was based on Shaughnessy v. Mezei n164 and broad
interpretations of Boumediene and Munaf. n165 The government's argument was twofold. First, the government
relied on Mezei to ground the legal authority for excluding the Kiyemba petitioners from entering the United States.
n166 Second, Munaf was used to reconcile the petitioners' right to release with their continued detention. n167 A.
Mezei and the Government's Immigration-Based Framework In Mezei, the Supreme Court held that the indefinite
detention of a non-citizen on Ellis Island was not a "[deprivation] of any statutory or constitutional right." n168 The
petitioner, Ignatz Mezei, was born in Gibraltar and lived in the United States for [*799] over twenty-five years. n169
He left to visit his dying mother in Romania but was denied entry to the country and attempted to return to the
United States, only to discover that a change in immigration laws while he was abroad meant that he could no
longer legally re-enter. n170 He was stuck on Ellis Island and attempts at resettling him failed miserably. n171 The
government argued that rather than viewing Mezei's confinement as detention, it should be construed as exclusion
n172 - the authority of which was, the government argued, based on well-founded legal foundations in United
States immigration law. n173 The Court agreed. n174 Employing habeas corpus to order the release of Mezei into
the United States, it argued, was an improper exercise of judicial discretion. n175 In Kiyemba, much like in Mezei,
the government argued that releasing the petitioners into the United States would amount to an unlawful intrusion
into the authority of the political branches to exclude non-citizens from entering United States territory. n176
However, there are serious flaws with the government's Mezei-based argument .

The government was

correct in asserting that it was "unprecedented" to grant the courts authority to
order the Executive to release detainees into the United State s. n177 It is also true,
however, that a Kiyemba-type situation is unprecedented. One of the glaring differences between the immigration
analysis adopted in Mezei and the facts in Kiyemba is the nature of the detentions. First, in immigration cases,
detainees voluntarily come under the jurisdiction of the United States government upon choosing to enter the
country - this is simply the nature of immigration-based detentions. The Uighurs, in contrast, [*800] were captured
in Pakistan and forcibly brought under the jurisdictional umbrella of the United States. n178 This is relevant to
determine the source of the detainees' predicament, or how the detainees came under United States authority. This
suggests that indefinite executive detention is less disconcerting when the situation is created by the detainee
himself. The government recognized, despite its reliance on immigration-based analysis, that judicial review based
on immigration laws is inappropriate. n179 Second,

the government in Mezei determined that the

plaintiff posed a threat to national security. n180 The same cannot be said for the petitioners in
Kiyemba. While the petitioners were initially characterized as enemy combatants - and, therefore, national security
threats - the government has since withdrawn support for that determination. n181 Additionally, the government

This indicates the government

conceded there was no legal basis for the indefinite detention of the Uighurs. By
had not made any further allegations or arguments to that effect.

applying Mezei in the Kiyemba proceedings, the government ignored the significant elements that distinguish
immigration-based detentions founded on the concept of exclusion from terrorist detentions. In light of the
pronounced factual differences, that application is troubling.

--xt solves EU Relations

The CP solvesclosing Gitmo would help end the friction
between the US-EU relations
Archick 14Kristin is a specialist in European Affairs for the Congressional
Research Service (U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism December 1, 2014
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf)//JLee
U.S. and European officials alike maintain that the imperative to provide freedom
and security at home should not come at the cost of sacrificing core principles with respect to civil liberties
and upholding common standards on human rights . Nevertheless, the status and
treatment of suspected terrorist detainees has often been a key point of U.S.-European
tension. Especially during the former George W. Bush Administration, a number of U.S. policies
were subject to widespread criticism in Europe ; these included the U.S.-run detention
facility at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba; U.S. plans to try enemy combatants before military commissions;
and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition (or extrajudicial
transfer of individuals from one country to another, often for the purpose of interrogation) and the possible
presence of CIA detention facilities in Europe also gripped European media attention and prompted numerous

Some
individuals held at Guantnamo and/or allegedly subject to U.S. rendition have been
European citizens or residents. Many European leaders and analysts viewed these
U.S. terrorist detainee and interrogation policies as being in breach of international
and European law, and as degrading shared values regarding human rights and the treatment of prisoners.
Moreover, they feared that such U.S. policies weakened U.S. and European efforts to
win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds, considered by many to be a crucial
element in countering terrorism. The Bush Administration, however, defended its detainee and rendition
investigations by the European Parliament, national legislatures, and judicial bodies, among others.

polices as important tools in the fight against terrorism, and vehemently denied allegations that such policies
violated U.S. human rights commitments. Bush Administration officials acknowledged European concerns about
Guantnamo and sought agreements with foreign governments to accept some Guantnamo detainees, but
maintained that certain prisoners were too dangerous to be released.

U.S.-EU frictions over

terrorist detainee policies have subsided to some degree since the start of the Obama
Administration. EU and other European officials welcomed President Obamas
announcement in January 2009 that the United States intended to close the detention facility
at Guantnamo within a year. They were also pleased with President Obamas executive order banning torture
and his initiative to review Bush Administration legal opinions regarding detention and interrogation methods. In

the U.S. State Department appointed a special envoy to work on closing

the detention facility, tasked in particular with persuading countries in Europe and elsewhere to accept
March 2009,

detainees cleared for release but who could not be repatriated to their country of origin for fear of torture or
execution. Some EU members accepted small numbers of released detainees, but others declined. At the same
time, the Obama Administration has faced significant challenges in its efforts to close Guantnamo. S ome

observers contend that U.S. officials have been frustrated by the reluctance of other
countries, including some in Europe, to take in more detainees . Congressional opposition to
elements of the Administrations plan for closing Guantnamo, and certain restrictions imposed by
Congress (including on the Administrations ability to transfer detainees to other countries amid concerns that some

Consequently, the
Obama Administration has not fulfilled its promise to shut down Guantnamo. In
released detainees were engaging in terrorist activity), have also presented obstacles.

March 2011, President Obama signed an executive order that in effect created a formal system of indefinite
detention for those detainees at Guantnamo not charged or convicted but deemed too dangerous to free. The
Administration also announced in March 2011 an end to its two-year freeze on new military commission trials for
Guantnamo detainees.73

Some European policy makers continue to worry that as long as

Guantnamo remains open, it helps serve as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, its
affiliates, and other Islamist extremist groups. European officials have also voiced concern about the physical wellbeing of those detainees at Guantnamo who began hunger strikes in early 2013 to protest their ongoing

the European Parliament adopted a resolution that expressed

concern for those on hunger strike, and again called upon the United States to close
the detention facility.74 The Obama Administration asserts that it remains committed to closing
Guantnamo. In late May 2013, President Obama renewed his pledge to work toward this goal,
and announced that U.S. authorities would restart the process of sending home or resettling in third
incarceration. In May 2013,

countries those detainees already cleared for transfer. In August 2013, the Administration released two Algerian
detainees (the first such releases in nearly a year), after certifying to Congress that they no longer posed a threat to
U.S. national security. Media sources indicate that nine additional detainees were transferred to other countries
during the remainder of 2013, including three to Slovakia. In December 2013, Congress passed a measure in the
FY2014 defense authorization bill (P.L. 113-66) easing restrictions on the Administrations ability to transfer low-risk

In signing the bill into law, President Obama asserted that it

was a welcome step toward ultimately closing the detention facility, but urged
Congress to lift other restrictions that still prevent the transfer of Guantnamo
detainees to prisons on U.S. soil for trial in U.S. courts . Some commentators suggest, however,
detainees to other countries.

that Congress may not be inclined to take further action aimed at shuttering Guantnamo amid the controversy
that erupted in late May 2014 following the Administrations transfer of five Taliban prisoners from Guantnamo to
Qatar (without prior congressional notification) in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity in
Afghanistan. Of the almost 800 individuals detained at Guantnamo since early 2002, press reports indicate that

European concerns also linger about the past

role of European governments in U.S. terrorist detainee policies and practices . In
143 remained as of the end of November 2014.75

September 2012, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution (by 568 votes to 34, with 77 abstentions)

calling upon EU member states to investigate whether CIA detention facilities had
existed on their territories.76 The resolution urged Lithuania, Poland, and Romania in particular to open or
resume independent investigations, and called on several other member states to fully disclose all relevant
information related to suspected CIA flights on their territory .

Meanwhile, some U.S. and European

officials worry that allegations of U.S. wrongdoing and rendition-related criminal
proceedings against CIA officers in some EU states (stemming from the Bush era) continue
to cast a long shadow and could put vital U.S.-European intelligence cooperation
against terrorism at risk.77

--xt Solves Soft Power

The counterplan is key to solve soft power
Shulz 9 Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress William F. Schulz, 2009,
Center for American Progress, "The Future of Human Rights: Restoring Americas
Leadership, www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/10918.pdf, 7/15/2015,
\\BD
What has been far more problematic over the last few years than random disparities
between domestic and international interpretations of human rights law has been a
fundamental disparagement of the authority of the international community itself .
Such depreciation started early: in 2000 Condoleezza Rice, then foreign policy advisor to candidate George W. Bush,
wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine, Foreign policy in a Republican administrationwill proceed from the firm ground
of the national interest, not from the interests of an illusory international community [emphasis added]. Over the
past seven years the U.S. has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for that allegedly chimerical community by
doing such things as unsigning the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC); declaring the Geneva
Conventions inapplicable to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other so-called unlawful combatants; ignoring UN
findings and resolutions in the run-up to the Iraq War; or refusing to stand for election to the UN Human Rights

The consequences have been devastating for the reputations both of the U.S.,
which has seen its favorability ratings drop precipitously around the world,5 and,
paradoxically, of human rights themselves. The U.S. has long prided itself on being
a champion of human rights and with much good reason . We would have had no Universal
Council.

Declaration of Human Rights had it not been for Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt; the U.S. pushed hard for the civil
rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords, thereby contributing to the eventual liberation of Eastern Europe; the U.S.
judicial system with its wide array of due process protections has been a model emulated by newly emerging
countries around the world; U.S. diplomats have frequently intervened on behalf of political dissidents; the Kosovo
War was spearheaded by an American commitment to prevent ethnic cleansing; and the annual State Department
human rights reports have long been an invaluable resource to the cause of human rights. The current U.S.
administrations commitment to battling HIV/AIDS in Africa and its outspokenness on Darfur are consistent with this

for the most powerful nation in the world, long looked to as a model of
human rights virtue, to undermine the international system itselfthe very
framework upon which human rights are predicatedis to cause immeasurable
damage to the struggle for liberty. Backtracking on our commitments to
international treaties and norms in the name of defending human rights is not just
ironic. One of the consequences of the Iraq War with its latter-day human rights rationale and of the War on
tradition. But

Terror with its oft-stated goals of defending freedom and the rule of law is that human rights themselves have
come to be identified with Americas worldwide ambitions. For human rights to be conflated with, fairly or not, in
the words of the critic David Rieff, the official ideology of American empire,6 only exacerbates the customary
suspicion in which human rights have been held by some in the developing world who see them as a guise for the

The truth is that if human rights and the U.S.s pursuit of them
are discredited, American interests are put in peril. Reserving the option to torture
prisoners, denying them habeas corpus, sending them into black site prisonsall
this makes it harder to defend America against the charge of hypocrisy; the claim
that we are carrying out a war in defense of the rule of law by abandoning that very
rule. Such a charge hands fodder for recruitment to our adversaries and makes the world less safe for Americans.
imposition of Western values.

No country can claim protection for its own citizens overseas (be they soldiers taken as prisoners, nationals charged

Global
relations are based in good part on reciprocity. Nor can the U.S. offer effective
objection to the human rights violations of others if it is guilty of those same
violations itself or has shunned cooperation with international allies. No nation, no
matter how powerful, can successfully pursue improvements in human rights
with crimes, or corporations faced with extortion) if it fails to respect international norms at home.

around the world independent of the international community . Unilateral sanctions imposed
upon a country to protest human rights abuses will inevitably fail if they lack the support of others

Indefinite detention collapses international cooperation

Scheinin 12 Professor of International Law, former UN Special Rapporteur on
Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism
Martin Scheinin, 1/11/2012, "Should Human Rights Take a Back Seat in Wartime?",
www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/11/national_defense_authorization_act_sc
heinin_interview-full.html, 7/15/2015, \\BD
As a world leader and active promoter of universal human rights, the practice of
indefinite detention without charge would seem to clash with U.S. ideals . Could you
CLC:

comment on this contradiction? MS: One of the main lessons learned in the international fight against terrorism is
that counter-terrorism professionals have gradually come to learn and admit that human rights violations are not an

Such measures tend to backfire in

multiple ways. They result in legal problems by hampering prosecution, trial and
punishment. The use of torture is a clear example here. They also tend to alienate
the communities with which authorities should be working in order to detect and
prevent terrorism. And they add to causes of terrorism, both by perpetuating "root causes" that involve the
acceptable shortcut in an effective fight against terrorism.

alienation of communities and by providing "triggering causes" through which bitter individuals make the morally
inexcusable decision to turn to methods of terrorism. The NDAA is just one more step in the wrong direction, by
aggravating the counterproductive effects of human rights violating measures put in place in the name of
countering terrorism. CLC: Does the NDAA afford the U.S. a practical advantage in the fight against terrorism? Or

It is hard to see any practical advantage

gained through the NDAA. It is just another form of what I call symbolic legislation,
enacted because the legislators want to be seen as being "tough" or as "doing
something." The law is written as just affirming existing powers and practices and hence not providing any
might the law undermine its global credibility? MS:

meaningful new tools in the combat of terrorism. By constraining the choices by the executive, it nevertheless
hampers effective counter-terrorism work, including criminal investigation and prosecution, as well as international
counter-terrorism cooperation, markedly in the issue of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Hence, it
carries the risk of distancing the United States from its closest allies and the international community generally. And
of course these kinds of legal provisions are always open for bad faith copying by repressive governments that will
use them for their own political purposes. CLC: Do you think the U.S. adoption of the indefinite detention provisions

these kinds of legal provisions are

always open for bad faith copying by repressive governments that will use them for
their own political purposes. Nevertheless, one of the conclusions I drew at the end of my six-year tenure
sets a precedent for other countries to do so? MS: Of course,

as United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism was that such copying of bad laws is

is much more common that countries are willing to learn from

each other about what really works in the fight against terrorism, and for my part I
did my best to identify and promote such best practice. There are a lot of good
models showing how laws can at the same time comply with human rights and
produce real results in the fight against terrorism. I don't think countries genuinely
concerned about terrorism will be tempted to follow the NDAA approach. But
repressive governments may do so for their own political purposes.
less frequent than expected. It

Ending indefinite detention is sufficient to solve

UNU 10 United Nations University
United Nations University, 3/3/2010, Event report: Obama and the World: One Year
Later, With Jean-Marc Coicaud and Tom Farer,

http://www.ony.unu.edu/events/Obama%20and%20the%20world_Event
%20report.pdf, 7/15/2015, \\BD
The Ambassador of Zambia asked Dean Farer to give an assessment of Obamas policy towards Africa, given that he
made no reference to this continent during the talk. Dean Farer explained that he saw an overlap between the
policies of George W. Bush and Obama in relation to Africa. Indeed, the US has increased the flow of resources to
the continent and has placed an emphasis on medical assistance, in particular for HIV/AIDS, as well as for improved
governance (openness, pluralism, and corruption reduction). He also mentioned that the message of both
presidents was very much focused on development, stability and increased production of public goods in order to

a UNICRI representative criticized the

Obama administrations lack of action in closing Guantanamo . Dean Farer responded that
the president had to consider the intensity of the domestic political opposition he
would encounter. Moreover, the Guantanamo issue, a very important symbol of soft
power, is closely related to matters such as indefinite detention without trial and
trial by special military tribunal. Further issues arose when Obama was briefed
about the legal and political complexities of convicting dangerous individuals for
whom evidence was secured through forms of intelligence that cannot be disclosed .
make African countries attractive to private investment. Finally,

**Torture Reports 1NC

Text: The Central Intelligence Agency should release all torture
reports. The Central Intelligence Agency should institute a ban
on torture.
Releasing torture reports solves thats their internal link
evidence
The CIA already banned torture, but the counterplans durable
fiat means its not circumvented
Lewis 6/16 writer for The Guardian
Paul Lewis, 6/16/2015, The Guardian, Senate passes torture ban despite Republican
opposition, http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/16/senate-passes-tortureban-republicans, 7/15/2015, \\BD
She described the bipartisan support of the amendment as a huge repudiation of the former Bush administration
officials who, she said, have fought hard since publication of the Senate report to defend the CIAs tactics and turn

Laura Pitter, a senior national security counsel at Human Rights

Watch, said that the techniques used by the CIA were already clearly prohibited
under US law when they were practiced, and it was possible a future administration
could once again find a way around the rules . However she argued the legislation cementing
this into a partisan issue.

Obamas order, which mandates the US military and agencies to only use techniques permitted in the army manual,
would serve as an additional bulwark and help reinforce the ban in the future.Opponents of the McCain-Feinstein
amendment, Pitter added, may have raised reservations about the US committing to rules over detention that are
contained in the army manual, which is a public document. Prior to the vote, Feinstein told fellow senators that

Obamas ban on torture was only guaranteed for as long as a future president
agrees to leave them in place. Although the techniques employed by the CIA were illegal, Feinstein
added, there was also a possibility that flawed legal opinions justifying the techniques
could be written again. She pointed out that CIA director John Brennan agreed with the
presidents 2009 prohibition of enhanced interrogation techniques and called on
fellow senators to recommit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the United
States does not torture, without equivocation, without exception. However that was not a
position that more than a third of Republican senators could agree with. McConnell and his majority whip, John
Cornyn - the two most senior lawmakers in the Senate were among the 21 senators to oppose the measure. All
those who voted against the amendment were Republican. McCain used a speech before the vote to read out a list
of senior military figures who he said backed the permanent ban on those past interrogation practices which, he
said, compromised our values, stained our national honor and did little good.

Internet Freedom CPs

**Internet Gambling
The United States federal government should legalize nearly all online
gambling in the United States.
Solves internet freedom
Kibbe 4/28/14 (Matt, FreedomWorks, "Coalition Letter: No Federal Ban on Internet Gambling")
We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing to express our deep concerns about the Restoration of Americas Wire
Act (H.R. 4301), which would institute a de facto ban on internet gaming in all 50 states. The legislation is a broad overreach by the
federal government over matters traditionally reserved for the states. H.R. 4301 will reverse current law in many states and

a ban will not stop

online gambling. Prohibiting states from legalizing and regulating the practice only
ensures that it will be pushed back into the shadows where crime can flourish with
little oversight. In this black market, where virtually all sites are operated from abroad, consumers have little to no
protection from predatory behavior. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows
the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet, opening the
door for increased Internet regulation in the future. By banning a select form of Internet commerce ,
the federal government is setting a troubling precedent and providing fodder
to those who would like to see increased Internet regulation in the future. We fear
that H.R. 4301 will begin a dangerous process of internet censorship that will
simultaneously be circumvented by calculated international infringers while
constraining the actions of private individuals and companies in the United States.
drastically increase the federal governments regulatory power. As we have seen in the past,

Current gambling laws gut any and all US cred on internet freedom
Minton 2011 (Michelle; Fed's online poker shutdown assaults internet freedom;
May 13; www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/05/13/Feds----Online-PokerShutdown-Assaults-Internet-Freedom; kdf)
On April 15, a day now known as Black Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) effectively shut down three

The DOJs heavy-handed prosecution of the

websites, all of which are based abroad, has made a mockery of Americas stated
commitment to Internet freedom. The seizures have also hindered the online
gambling operations in nations where Internet poker is completely lawful and the U.S. government has no
major online poker websites by seizing their domain names.

jurisdiction. Given that the seized poker websites are housed and regulated by foreign nationsPoker Stars is
registered in the Isle of Man, Full Tilt in Ireland, and Absolute Poker in Antiguahow could the U.S. government
unilaterally seize their domain names? The short answer is that all of the sites end in .com. All such domains are
registered in the U.S. and, hence, are subject to U.S. civil forfeiture laws. Author and legal scholar Larry Downes has
critiqued civil asset forfeiture laws on the Technology Liberation Front blog. He argues that the laws are actually
intended to punish suspects before they are convicted. The purpose of forfeiture laws, Downes laments, is to
help prosecutors fit the punishment to the crime, especially when restitution of the victims or of the cost of
prosecution is otherwise unlikely to have a deterrent effect. Domain name seizures often occur without a trial and
often without any warning to the owners, as was the case in Black Fridays seizure of poker domains .

The
governments move has reignited the controversy over U.S. federal agencies using
domain seizures to punish foreign entities allegedly in violation of U.S. laws. While the
DOJ did not technically take down the poker websites, federal agents obtained a court order that compelled
Verisign, the global operator of the .com registry, to reroute the poker sites domain names to a government page
featuring intimidating federal logos notifying users of the seizure. As a result of the seizure, no computer in the
worldeven those in countries where poker is explicitly legalcould access the poker sites via their domain names.
This latest round of seizures follows a series of similar actions taken in recent months by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), which has seized the domain names of dozens of websites alleged to be engaged in copyright
infringement. One such site, the Spain-based Rojadirecta.com, had actually been deemed legal by Spanish courts.
Perhaps in an effort to stem discussion of seizures legality, the DOJ agreed to unfreeze the .com domains for Poker
Stars and Full Tilt to allow players to cash out their accounts and allow foreign gamblers to continue playing on the
sites. In return, the websites were required to promise to prevent American-based customers from playing poker

games for money on their websites. The third major site, Antigua-based Absolute Poker, has reportedly been offered
the same privilege in exchange for agreeing to bar U.S. customers from playing for money. However, Antiguas
finance minister issued a statement last week accusing the U.S. of shutting the sites down in order to stamp out
competition. Online gambling is Antiguas second largest employer after the tourism industry, so it comes as little
surprise that Antigua is considering rejecting DOJs compromise and instead challenging the U.S. governments

It is deeply troubling that the United States, a

country that purports to value individual freedom, has so miserably failed to protect
it when it comes to politically incorrect pursuits like online gambling. In effect, our government
is bullying its own citizens and holding innocent foreign companies hostage. Hopefully,
action before the World Trade Organization (WTO).

the events of Black Friday will focus public attention on the flaws of civil asset forfeiture laws and encourage foreign
nations to stand up to U.S. authorities.

The DOJs war of intimidation may have put a

temporary hold on Internet poker in the United States, but its heavy-handed tactics
should outrage anybody who values freedom and individual rights.

--xt: solves internet freedom

Legalizing online gambling key to internet freedom its a Trojan horse for
widespread regulation
Telford 10/20/14
Erik Telford is senior vice president at the Franklin Center for Government & Public
Integrity, The Hill, October 20, 2014, Ending the cycle of casino cronyism,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/221124-ending-the-cycle-of-casinocronyism
When powerful gaming interest are spearheading

the fight to ban online gambling , it should give

is focused on federal legislation to ban online gambling outright

stifling their competition before it ever reaches the market. It is a glimpse of crony capitalism in its most
naked form, and represents a very troubling assault on Internet freedom , giving
government a foot in the door for a broader regulatory regime and usurping
our federalist system. The 2011, the Department of Justices position interpretation on Internet gambling
you pause. Their main policy objective

threw the issue to state legislatures--where it should be. Almost immediately, Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey
passed legalizing legislation. The Restoration of Americas Wire Act, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) would prohibit interstate sports betting using wire services, effectively killing online
gambling across the states where its legal. While their pretense is to advance a moral good, this policy would
undermine the free market, encourage crime, and erodes the constitutional concept of states rights. Proponents of
the regulation have brought in political heavyweights to undermine legalized online gambling, including former
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who represents the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, claiming that legalizing
online gambling would promote fraud, addiction, and money laundering. "I think it's going to be very difficult to
work something out, Lincoln said, "I think it's important to put a time-out on this and to stop and think about what
it's going to mean to us as a nation in our economy, to our children and to our society." However, these

problems already exist with black market gambling mostly run from overseas
with profits funding shady and potentially dangerous operations outside the
jurisdiction of state regulation and consumer protections. Alan Feldman, an executive vice
president of MGM notes that online gambling is here, and its been here for a very long time.
Legalizing online gambling would likely see more of a shift from illegal to
legal play instead of funneling customers away from traditional casinos and their trappings. Free market
advocates agree that consumers would enjoy more security were this pursuit made legal. In this black market,
where virtually all sites are operated from abroad,

consumers have little to no protection from

predatory behavior. wrote officials of the Institute For Policy Innovation to several congressmen. They then
shared wider concern that Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this bill allows
the federal government to take a heavy hand in regulating the Internet,
opening the door for increased Internet regulation in the future. Just like
Prohibition in the 1920s, banning this vice would actually incentivize criminal
behavior. Those fearful of fraud, child participation, and profits diverted to gangs
or terrorists should push for legalization in every state to make the industry
as transparent as possible. Legalizing this long-established, multibillion dollar business gets the
profits out of the shadows, expands market opportunities, and puts revenue into the coffers of both legitimate
business and state governments that will benefit.

The US has set a double-standard on internet freedomonly repealing

UIGEA allows for it on a massive scale
Gardner 2010 (April; Gambling regulations will help Obama's world internet
freedom mandate; Sep 23; www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gamblinglaw/gambling_regulations_will_help_obama_s_world_internet_freedom_mandate_557
52.html; kdf)

Obama gave a speech today in front of the United Nations General Assembly, and his
message was largely one of individual freedom. During the speech, Obama touched on many issues,
President

perhaps the most aggressive of which was having a Palestinian state separate from Israel. Obama spoke of allowing
the Palestinians their own state with the hope that Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Obama
acknowledged that this could take a long time, but that the goal could become a reality. During the speech,

Obama spoke about how the Internet should remain free f rom government
interference everywhere in the world. The freedom to surf the Internet would allow
people all across the globe to research issues and learn from the wide array of news that is
currently found on the Internet. "We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to
make up their own minds," said Obama. "And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the

That statement may have

been much better received had the US not had their own blocks on Internet freedom.
The Internet gambling industry currently is operating as a black market in the US due to the 2006 Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The law is a form of Internet censorship that Representative Barney Frank
rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders."

and other lawmakers have been trying to repeal. In the quest for Internet freedom, the US proclaims themselves as

If the US can place Internet bans on

certain industries, then little could be done to stop other countries from banning
different industries or websites because of their beliefs. For instance, in countries where
leaders, however, the country must be careful with their plea.

religion is unified, there could be bans on any material that the country finds outside the rules of their particular
religion. In other countries, bans could be placed on industries that are run largely by foreign operators. President

Obama took a strong first step today by promoting Internet freedom. The next step
will be making sure the US leads by example , and one area to start would be by lifting the
ban on Internet gambling. The president has laid down the gauntlet, and now it is
time for him to follow his own lead.

--xt: internet on brink

Legalization signals return to internet freedom
Legal Casino 14 Portal for gambling news and articles http://legalcasinous.com/
The United States must change their online gambling laws to show to the other
nations that the time of the disrespect for the international agreements is
ended. One of these agreements is with the European Union. The European Commission has warned USA a long
time ago that their online casino laws violates the economic agreements with the
European union. The actual Obama administration has shown, finally, the good wish to conform with such
agreements. The Representative Barney Frank has been a proponent for years of the online games legalization. He
has tried to oppose to the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) last year, but not in vain. The
Republicans had the control, but now, with the democrats, in the US there is the hope for a new law Internet
Gambling Law. Frank believes that all the citizens of the United States have the right to play for money at the online
casino, in the privacy of their houses.

Internet freedom.

Even some Republicans in past had fought for the

**internet federalism
The fifty states of the United States should legalize nearly all online
gambling in the United States.
State level regulation allows internet federalism
King, 10 [J.D. candidate 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, B.A.
Middlebury College 2002, ARTICLE: GEOLOCATION AND FEDERALISM ON THE
INTERNET: CUTTING INTERNET GAMBLING'S GORDIAN KNOT, Lexis]

Gambling, like most divisive social issues, is best regulated at the state level. n190 Yet migration of
to the Internet has complicated matters greatly, giving rise to difficult questions as to
which governmental entities are best suited to regulate and what the proper substantive regulatory regime ought to
V. CONCLUSION
gambling

be. The failure of energetic federal and state efforts to prohibit Internet gambling over the past decade suggests that the issue may present a nearly impregnable problem, or as this
Article terms the matter, an Internet gambling Gordian knot. The rise of geolocation technologies in recent years offers a new opportunity to cut through that Gordian knot via a

Geolocation technologies are not perfect. However, when they are

integrated into a federal-state framework in which states choose their own
substantive policies from a limited "menu" of options, these technologies can
dramatically improve the democratic responsiveness of Internet gambling
laws, increase compliance with the rule of law, and internalize the large
and increasing costs associated with prohibition of Internet gambling. Such an
jurisdictionally differentiated regulatory framework for Internet gambling.

approach is not immune to criticism, particularly in terms of its potential impact on the fundamental openness of the Internet in the long-term. In light of the market advantages
associated with jurisdictional differentiation and the need for law to be supreme over code in divisive areas such as Internet gambling, those drawbacks [*75] fail to outweigh the

These conclusions carry implications that go

well beyond the Internet gambling debate. If jurisdictional differentiation is a
normatively superior approach with respect to Internet gambling, then it may
be in other market sectors as well. This consequence, along with the degree to
which technological advances have undermined previous court decisions on
electronic commerce issues, suggests that geolocation technologies may play a
role in enabling federalism on the Internet for years to come.
potential benefits offered by aggressive use of geolocation technologies.

**Freedom Online Coalition

Text: The United States federal government should submit a review to [the
plan] to the Freedom Online Coalition to insure international standards of
internet freedom are being met.
CP solves 100% of case creates an internationally modeled form of
internet freedom, checks the circumvention disad
Kehl et al. 14 [Danielle, Kevin Bankston, Robyn Greene, Rober Morgus July, 2014.
Kehl is a Senior policy analyst at New America's Open Technology Institute.
Surveillance Costs: The NSAs Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom &
Cybersecurity. Pdf. 7/13]//kmc
The United States must act immediately to restore the credibility of the
Internet Freedom agenda, lest it become another casualty of the NSAs surveillance programs. As
described in Part IV, various agencies within the U.S. government have taken initial
steps to demonstrate goodwill in this area, particularly through the NTIAs
announcement that it intends to transition stewardship of the IANA functions to a
global multistakeholder organization and the State Departments speech outlining
six principles to guide signals intelligence collection grounded in international
human rights norms. However, it will take a broader effort from across the government to demonstrate that the United States is fully committed to Internet
Freedom, includ- ing firmly establishing the nature of its support for the evolving
multistakeholder system of Internet governance and directly engaging with issues
raised by the NSA surveillance programs in international conversations.
Supporting international norms that in- crease confidence in the security
of online communications and respect for the rights of Internet users all
around the world is integral to restoring U.S. credibility in this area . We have
surveillance programmes that abuse human rights and lack in transparency and ac- countability precisely because
we do not have sufficiently robust, open, and inclusive debates around surveillance and national security pol- icy,

It is time to begin having those

conversations on both a national and an international level, particularly at key
upcoming Internet governance convenings including the 2014 Internet Governance
Forum, the International Telecommunications Unions plenipotentiary meeting, and the upcoming WSIS+10
review process.340 Certainly, the United States will not be able to continue promoting the
Internet Freedom agenda at these meetings without addressing its national security
appa- ratus and the impact of NSA surveillance on individuals around the world.
Rather than being a problem, this presents an opportunity for the U.S. to
assume a leadership role in the promo- tion of better international
standards around surveillance practices. Moreover, the U.S. should take steps to
further internationalize its Internet Freedom efforts writ large and work with foreign
governments to broadly promote democracy and human rights online. In 2011,
Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers of the Center for a New American Security wrote
that the United States should counter the view that Internet Freedom is
merely an American project cooked up in Washington, rather than a notion
rooted in universal human rights... The response to [concerns about the Internet
Freedom agendas ties to U.S. foreign policy should be] to internationalize the
effort.341 Today, more than ever, it is critical that the United States heed this
advice and take steps to broaden the base of support for the Internet
writes Matthew Shears of the Center for Democracy & Technology.339

Freedom agenda. Future meetings and activities of the Freedom Online

Coalition, which the State Department played a key role in convening, will serve as one test of
these efforts as the group attempts to transition from a discussion forum
for like-minded governments into a more ac- tion-oriented coalition. 342 The
United States has the opportunity to urge other member countries to live up to the commitments they made at the
2014 meeting in Tallinn with respect to account- ability, transparency, and other policies ground- ed in human
rights. As Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the President of Estonia, articulated in his remarks at the 2014 meeting, We must
be honest with ourselves and admit that recent developments regarding purported surveillance by the NSA and
similar organisations in different countries make the defense of an open Internet more difficult. That, too, is a
challenge that Freedom Online Coalition must face.343 Outside of the Freedom Online Coalition, but consistent
with its goals, the U.S. can urge both companies and foreign governments to join organizations like the Global
Network Initiative or commit to other voluntary processes that promote the centrality of human rights in the
policymaking process.344

They say yes

DDP 15 [Digital Defenders Partnership, a subset of Freedom Online Coalition. WG 3
Privacy and Transparency Online . https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/howwe-work/working-groups/working-group-3/ 7/14]//kmc
FOC working group (WG) Privacy and Transparency Online focuses on the relationship between
governments and information & communications technology (ICT) companies, with
a particular emphasis on respecting human rights online, including
freedom of expression and privacy. In furtherance of that objective, this group intends to
explore the privacy and transparency practices of governments and companies,
including through requests for user data, content restriction, and network shutdown .
This group will remain mindful of the applicability of key principles from the Tallinn Agreement, such as the rule of
law, collection for a legitimate purpose, non-arbitrariness, and effective oversight, which should guide the
interaction between ICT companies and governments .

The discussion on transparency in the

ICT sector has largely focused on major Internet companies in the United
States, Canada, and Europe. With the proliferation of new laws and
regulations in this area, and the growing range of companies handling
user data and content, this conversation should have a global framework,
applying to governments from all regions and companies from all parts of
the ICT sector. By bringing together governments, companies, civil society
experts, and academics, this WG aims to contribute to the global discussion on
transparency and accountability with respect to ICT relationships by seeking to
provide clarity to the following areas: General understandings of the laws, policies,
and processes through which governments make requests to ICT companies that
may impact privacy. How ICT companies in such countries receive and process government requests. The
implications of these practices for the privacy and freedom of expression of users, as well as broader considerations

Opportunities for and challenges to greater

transparency, including legitimate law enforcement, national security, and other
considerations. The WG will focus, at least initially, on the practices of ICT companies and governments in
related to law enforcement and national security.

areas that could implicate privacy and free expression as described above, and may also include broader multistakeholder discussions on how ICT companies can respect human rights, and how governments can help or hinder
company efforts to do so.

at: perm
perm doesnt solve FOC credibility causes international backlash
IFEX 14 [4-22. In letter to Freedom Online Coalition, NGOs speak out on
surveillance of rights organisations.
https://www.ifex.org/international/2014/05/01/surveillance_rights_organisations/
7/14]//kmc
In response to Edward Snowden's testimony before the Council of Europe that the NSA and GCHQ monitored the

PEN International as part of

a coalition human rights organisations sent a letter to members of the Freedom
Online Coalition (FOC) on April 22, 2014 before its upcoming annual meeting in Tallinn, Estonia on April 28-29.
The FOC is a leading intergovernmental coalition, currently with 22 members,
established in 2011 with the express purpose of advancing Internet freedom (in
particular, free expression, assembly, association and privacy online). Both the US and UK are
members of the coalition. The April 22, 2014 letter follows. Dear Minister, On April 8,
confidential communications of human rights and civil society organisations,

2014, former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden testified before the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) via video-conference that the NSA and the United Kingdom Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) have used their surveillance capabilities to spy on the communications of

Snowden did not

reveal which groups the NSA or GCHQ have spied upon, but indicated that the types
of organizations whose communications had been compromised included major
global organizations similar to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and
other NGOs. Snowden explicitly told PACE members that the NSA had "specifically
targeted the communications of either leaders or staff members in a number of
purely civil or human rights organizations including domestically, within the
borders of the United States." If Snowden's assertion is accurate, such facts would
not only point to fresh dimensions of the overreach of NSA surveillance, but also
would constitute an outrageous breach of the US government's stated commitment
to human rights and freedom online. It also raises the very real possibility that these organizations'
human rights organizations and civil society groups, both domestically and internationally.

communications with confidential sources have been intercepted. Sharing this information with other governments

The US frequently
criticizes repressive states for unjustified government spying on human rights
organizations, media organizations, and civil society because such surveillance has
a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association and constitutes a clear
form of harassment and intimidation. Furthermore, as you are well aware, the US and
the UK have taken leadership roles in the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), the
leading intergovernmental coalition, established in The Hague on December 8, 2011, for the purpose
of "advancing Internet freedom - free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online - worldwide." FOC
members have joined in a shared commitment to work together to voice
concern over measures that restrict Internet freedom and to support
individuals whose human rights online are curtailed. FOC members also
have undertaken obligations to adopt and encourage policies and
practices, domestically and internationally, which ensure the protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms online, in particular freedom of
expression, the right to privacy, freedom of assembly and access to
information. If the allegations about US and UK surveillance of human rights and
civil society organizations are true, such practices would contradict the express
commitments made by the US and the UK to the FOC. We, the undersigned civil society and
could put victims and human rights defenders the world over in imminent danger.

human rights organizations, seek clarification as to the allegations that the NSA and GCHQ monitored or are
monitoring the communications of our organizations, or of other civil society organizations, media organizations,
and human rights groups. Where the facts support these claims, we ask the US and UK governments to explain the
reasons why this is occurring or has occurred in the past, and the extent of such monitoring, its continuance, and its

We call upon members of the FOC to live up to their stated commitment

to support civil society members or journalists whose human rights online may have
been violated. We seek FOC member assistance in ascertaining the underlying
factual basis for the Snowden allegations with respect to NSA and/or GCHQ spying
on civil society and human rights groups, and in ensuring a halt to any violations of
our privacy, freedom of expression and other human rights online. Sincerely, Access
justification.

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government AGEIA DENSI Alternative Informatics Association Amnesty
International ARTICLE 19 Asociacin de Internautas Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Benetech Big Brother Watch Bits of Freedom Breadboard Society Bytes for All, Pakistan Center for
Constitutional Rights Center for Democracy & Technology Center for Freedom of Expression and Freedom of
Information (CELE), Palermo University School of Law Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Charity &
Security Network Committee to Protect Journalists The Constitution Project ContingenteMX Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Digital Rights Foundation Digital Rights Ireland Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Foundation for Information Policy Research Free Press Freedom
House Freedom of the Press Foundation Global Voices Advocacy Hiperderecho Human Rights in China Human
Rights Watch Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) La
Quadrature du Net Movimento MEGA New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute Online Policy Group
Open Net Korea OpenMedia.org OpenTheGovernment.org Panoptykon Foundation PEN American Center PEN
International Privacy International Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Reporters sans frontires
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Son Tus Datos Thai Netizen Network
World Press Freedom Committee World Privacy Forum

aff answers
FOC credibility low
Donahoe 14 [Eileen, 5-2. Director of Global Affairs at Human Rights Watch.
Dispatches: Can the Freedom Online Coalition Live up to its Name?.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/02/dispatches-can-freedom-online-coalition-liveits-name 7/14]//kmc
the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) up to the task
of ensuring our privacy? The annual conference of this government coalition that took place this
week in Tallinn, Estonia did not answer lingering questions about the coalitions relevance
and credibility. The FOC, which currently includes 23 member governments, formed
in 2011 to advance freedom of expression, freedom of association, and online
privacy. Despite great rhetoric by a number of member governments, the Coalitions
potential has been deeply undermined by revelations of mass surveillance from
some of its most active founding members. A dominant theme that ran throughout
the conference was erosion of credibility and doubt about member government
follow-through on commitments to protect freedom online themselves, much less to
serve as role models for other governments. Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans
In an era of rampant surveillance by governments, is

acknowledged the credibility gap facing the coalition and invited constructive criticism and debate about the proper

Yet while the final Tallinn declaration produced by FOC governments

asserted that members would [c]ollectively condemn through diplomatic
channels, public statements and other means violations and abuses of human
rights and fundamental freedoms online as they occur in different countries
throughout the world, the declaration says little about reining in indiscriminate
surveillance, nor does it acknowledge that mass surveillance chills freedom of
expression and violates the right to privacy. The meeting came just weeks after
allegations emerged that US and UK intelligence agencies have monitored the
communications of human rights and civil society organizations like Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch. Sixty civil society organizations have written
to the coalition governments to address these allegations, and are still awaiting a
response. It is difficult to imagine that FOC members will be able to lead other
governments on the path to freedom and security in the digital realm if they are not
willing to hold themselves accountable to the principles they lay out for themselves.
limits of surveillance.

Minimum Wage CP

**1nc
Text: The United States federal government should establish a
Federal Minimum Wage Advisory Board.
The Counterplan boosts the economy and provides lawmakers
with political cover
Reeves 2015 (Richard V [is a senior fellow in Economic Studies @ Brookings];
Can we take the politics out of the federal minimum wage?; Apr 15;
www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/04/15-politics-of-minimum-wagereeves; kdf)
Can the U.S. follow suit? And if it
can, what might the new system look like? Two options at least are worth considering. 1. A Federal Minimum
Wage Advisory Board. This could be made up (like the U.K. version) of nine members:
three representatives of employer organizations, three from labor organizations,
and three independent labor economists. The Board would recommend a rate for
the national minimum wage each year, which would then be enacted by Congress in
the usual manner. The Board would have a strong incentive to set a rate likely to be adopted by Congress, in
Two options for taking the political heat out of the U.S. minimum wage

order to establish and maintain its reputation: there is, after all, little point in sitting on a Board that is ignored. The
Boards recommendation would not be binding and would not become the legal default level. But because the
advice is likely to be sensible, Congress would likely be inclined to follow it. 2. Wage Indexation. An alternative
favored by my Brookings colleague Gary Burtlesswould be to simultaneously raise the minimum wage and
introduce automatic indexing, lifting the minimum wage at the same rate as either consumer prices or the median
wagepreferably the latter. In effect, this would do for the minimum wage what President Nixon did for Social
Security. Congress would have the power to suspend a riseperhaps if unemployment reached a certain threshold
but the default position would be to link changes in the minimum wage to changes in the median wage or in the

These are both examples of what I

have called policy commitment devicesin a new paper, Ulysses Goes to Washingtonthat help
to overcome political myopia in order to support longer-term policy objectives . In the
broader consumer economy. Policy commitment devices in action

first case, taking advice from an independent commission, the commitment is somewhat less binding, although as
James Madison knew, the counsels and checks of friends can carry plenty of weight. Indexation would be a tighter
form of binding, since inaction on the part of politicians would lead to an uprating of minimum wage, rather than

there are political attractions to sub-contracting some

decision-making power over the minimum wage. By accepting the advice of an
independent body or allowing indexation to do its silent work, Republicans can keep their
business donors and right-wing critics at bay; Democrats can do the same for
unions and the political left. Sometimes the most powerful thing politicians can do is give some power
the current stasis. For both sides,

away. The minimum wage is now perhaps a case in point.

--xt Solves Econ

Raising the minimum wage stabilizes jobs for low skill workersthats the internal link to the economy
Patton 14 (Mike Patton. Certified Financial Planner, Accredited Estate Planne,
Board Certified in Estate Planning; Certified Tax Specialist (CTS); and Chartered
Mutual Fund Counselor (CMFC). The Facts on Increasing the Minimum Wage.
November 26, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/11/26/the-factson-the-minimum-wage-increase/)//EMerz
Is the minimum wage a good thing? It depends on who you ask. For example, famed economist Milton Friedman was
opposed to a minimum wage stating that, people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will
be unemployed. He further conveyed that it was no coincidence that the unemployment rate for teens at the time
was twice that of adults. Of course this was taken from an interview conducted several decades ago. More recently,

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman debunked this argument by

suggesting that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would not
cause big companies like McDonalds to cut jobs because these jobs
cannot be moved overseas or replaced by machines. Hes probably correct about a
large company like McDonalds. However, many smaller companies might disagree. As Ive stated, the merits of
raising it depends on who you ask. Personally, I have no dog in the hunt. Although I do have an opinion after

the U.S. Department of Labor

which suggests that raising the minimum wage would help the economy in a
number of ways. For example, it would increase consumer purchasing power and
reduce employee turnover. Ill address that in a moment. Would raising the minimum wage to $15 per
examining the facts, I have no bias on the matter. Another proponent is

hour help our economy? Follow along as I provide some facts (data is from 2012-13). The total U.S. labor force was
roughly 158.7 million. About 47%, or 75.3 million workers, were paid an hourly wage. Of all hourly workers about
4.7%, or 3.54 million, earned a wage equal to or below the minimum wage. For our discussion, lets assume the
entire group earned the minimum wage. If you multiply the number of workers who earned the minimum wage by
the current minimum wage, youd get the total wages earned by this group (3.54 million X $7.25 = $26.1 million). I f

every one of these workers received an increase to $15 per hour, the total wage
earned by this group would be $54.0 million. This represents an increase of $27.9 million. If 100% of this income
was spent on products and services, it would only equate to 1.25% of total U.S. GDP . Heres my
point. This increase, even if completely spent (which is doubtful), would not be very significant. Therefore, in my
view, the economic benefit argument is a red herring. What should a worker be paid?

Raising the minimum wage improves the economy and creates

more jobs- empirics from other states prove
Reich 15 (Robert Reich. Former U.S. Secretary of Labor, American political
economist, professor, author, and political commentator. Why We Should Raise the
Minimum Wage. April 27, 2015. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/27/why-we-shouldraise-the-minimum-wage-commentary.html)//EMerz
Across America, the ranks of the working poor are growing. While low-paying industries such as retail and food
preparation accounted for 22 percent of the jobs lost in the Great Recession, they've generated 44 percent of the

the
Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising the national minimum wage to
$10.10 an hour from $7.25 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. Seattle estimates
jobs added since then, according to a report from the National Employment Law Project. Last February,

that, before its historic decision, almost a fourth of its workers earned below $15 an hour. That translates into about

Most
need a higher

$31,000 a year for a full-time worker. In a high-cost city like Seattle, that's barely enough to support a family.

minimum-wage workers aren't teenagers these days. They're major breadwinners who
minimum wage in order to keep their families out of poverty . The gains from a higher

minimum wage extend beyond those who receive it .

More money in the pockets of low-wage

workers means more sales, especially in the locales they live in which, in turn,
creates faster growth and more jobs. A major reason the current economic recovery is anemic is that
so many Americans lack the purchasing power to get the economy moving again. With a higher minimum
wage, moreover, we'd all end up paying less for Medicaid, food stamps and other
assistance the working poor now need in order to have a minimally decent standard
of living. Some worry about job losses accompanying a higher minimum wage. I wouldn't advise any place to
raise its minimum wage immediately to $15 an hour from the current federal minimum of $7.25. That would be too
big a leap all at once. Employers especially small ones need time to adapt. But this isn't what Seattle is doing.
It's raising its minimum to $15 incrementally over several years from $9.32 (Washington State's current statewide
minimum). Large employers (with over 500 workers) that don't offer employer-sponsored health insurance have
three years to comply; those that offer health insurance have four; smaller employers, up to seven. (That may be
too long a phase-in.) My guess is Seattle's businesses will adapt without any net loss of employment. Seattle's

the $15 an hour minimum attracts into

the labor force some people who otherwise haven't been interested. That means they'll
employers will also have more employees to choose from as

end up with workers who are highly reliable and likely to stay longer, resulting in real savings. Research by Michael

Reich

(no relation) and Arindrajit Dube confirms these results. They examined employment in several
hundred pairs of adjacent counties lying on opposite sides of state borders, each with different minimum wages,

found no statistically significant increase in unemployment in the higherminimum counties, even after four years. (Other researchers who found contrary results failed to
and

control for counties where unemployment was already growing before the minimum wage was increased.) They also
found that employee turnover was lower where the minimum
state can meet the bar Seattle has just set. But many can and should.

was higher. Not every city or

at: Hurts job growth

Empirically wrong
Neuman 2014 (Scott; States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth,
Report Says; Jul 19; www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-jobgrowth-report-says; kdf)
New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum
wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth,
contrary to what critics said would happen. In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their
minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not.
The data run counter to a Congressional Budget Office report in February that said raising the minimum wage to
$10.10 an hour, as the White House supports, could cost as many as 500,000 jobs. The Associated Press writes: "In

number of jobs grew an

average of 0.85 percent from January through June . The average for the other 37
states was 0.61 percent. "Nine of the 13 states increased their minimum wages automatically in line with
the 13 states that boosted their minimums at the beginning of the year, the

inflation: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Four more states
Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island approved legislation mandating the increases."

at: Not enough people on minimum wage

The ripple effect of the CP lifts wages of 35 million people
Harris and Kearny 2014 (Benjamin H [was the Policy Director of The
Hamilton Project; a Fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings] and Melissa S [Director
of the Hamilton Project; a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution];The Ripple
Effect of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers;
www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/10-ripple-effect-of-increasing-theminimum-wage-kearney-harris; kdf)
Although relatively few workers report wages
exactly equal to (or below) the minimum wage, a much larger share of workers in
the United States earns wages near the minimum wage. This holds true in the states that
The Ripple Effects of Minimum Wage Policy

comply with the federal minimum wage, in addition to those states that have instituted their own higher minimum
wage levels. An increase in the minimum wage tends to have a ripple effect on other workers earning wages near
that threshold. This ripple effect occurs when a raise in the minimum wage increases the wage received by workers
earning slightly above the minimum wage. This effect of the statutory minimum wage on wages paid at the low end
of the wage distribution more generally is well recognized in the academic literature. Based on this recognition, we
quantify the number of workers potentially affected by minimum wage policy using the assumption that workers
earning up to 150 percent of the minimum wage would see a wage increase from a higher minimum wage. We
hasten to note that a complete analysis of the net effects of a minimum wage increase would also have to account
for potential negative employment effects. Our main goal of this empirical exercise is to dispel the notion that the
minimum wage is not a relevant policy lever, which is based on the faulty premise that only a small number of
workers would be affected. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, combined with information on the
binding minimum wage in each state, we are able to calculate these shares. Just 2.6 percent of workers are paid
exactly the minimum wage, but 29.4 percent of workers are paid wages that are below or equal to 150 percent of
the minimum wage in their state. Furthermore, the hours worked by this group represent nearly one-quarter24.7
percentof hours worked, which indicates that a large share of the impacted group is working close to full time
hours. In 2012, 32 states complied with the federally set minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In these states adhering
to the federal floor, 3.7 million workers earn the minimum wage or less. An additional 15.2 million are near
minimum wage, earning more than $7.25 per hour but less than $10.88 per hour. Therefore, 18.9 million workers in
these states would likely benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage. The Ripple Effect by State States
have the opportunity to set a minimum wage above the federal floor. Eighteen states, plus the District of Columbia,
had minimum wages that exceeded the federal wage floor in 2012, ranging from $7.40 in Michigan and Rhode
Island to $9.04 in Washington. In these states, 3.9 million workers earn their states minimum wage and an
additional 12.1 million workers earn between the mandated floor but less than 150 percent of the minimum level.
Overall, up to 16.0 million workers would likely see a raise in their wages if the minimum wage were increased in
these states. Indeed, every state in the country has a substantial share of workers who would be impacted by an
increase in the minimum wage in that state, as seen in figure 1 below. In 2012, Montana had the highest share of
workers37.2 percentwith wages equal to or less than 150 percent of the minimum wage. Even in Alaska, which
boasts higher wages compared to the rest of the country, 16.9 percent of workers had wages equal to or lower than
150 percent of the minimum. In the high-population state of California, 4.6 million workers would likely see a wage
increase if the minimum wage were raised in that state. Not surprisingly, the eighteen states with a higher
minimum wage level than the federal benchmark tended to have higher shares of workers with wages within 150
percent of the minimum wage. However, in every state in the country, at least one in six workers had wages that
were equal to 150 percent of the minimum wage or lower. Figure 1 To see the new state-by-state interactive chart,
click here. The December Jobs Gap As of December, our nation faces a jobs gap of 7.8 million jobs. The chart below
shows how the jobs gap has evolved since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, and how long it will
take to close under different assumptions of job growth. The solid line shows the net number of jobs lost since the
Great Recession began. The broken lines track how long it will take to close the jobs gap under alternative
assumptions about the rate of job creation going forward. Figure 2 If the economy adds about 208,000 jobs per
month, which was the average monthly rate for the best year of job creation in the 2000s, then it will take until
September 2018 to close the jobs gap. Given a more optimistic rate of 321,000 jobs per month, which was the
average monthly rate of the best year of job creation in the 1990s, the economy will reach pre-recession
employment levels by August 2016. To explore the outcomes under various job creation scenarios, you can try out
our interactive jobs gap calculator by clicking here. You can also see the jobs gap in each state by clicking here.

The minimum wage debate currently underway tends to narrowly focus on

those workers making exactly the minimum wage. This approach misses a large
number of low-wage workers whose wages would likely be raised through a ripple
Conclusion

effect resulting from an increase in the minimum wage. As our economy continues to recover,
a minimum wage increase could provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of
low-wage workers. A significant 35 million workers from across the country could
see their wages rise if the minimum wage were increased, allowing them to earn a
better livelihood and lead more economically secure lives . When discussing the minimum
wage, this is the magnitude of the impact that policymakers should consider

Aff Answers
Raising the minimum wage creates more economic problems
for companies-job loss is more likely
Patton 14 (Mike Patton. Certified Financial Planner, Accredited Estate Planne,
Board Certified in Estate Planning; Certified Tax Specialist (CTS); and Chartered
Mutual Fund Counselor (CMFC). The Facts on Increasing the Minimum Wage.
November 26, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/11/26/the-factson-the-minimum-wage-increase/)//EMerz
Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 could put pressure on other lowerpaying jobs which pay slightly more than the existing minimum. This could cause
stress in the compensation structure of many small businesses. In fact, any mandate
from the government which increases the cost of doing business could result in a number of
consequences, mostly negative. First, it could cause prices to rise as businesses attempt to protect profit margins.
Next, it could cause a loss of jobs if the business is forced to reduce expenses, again, to
maintain profitability. It could also lead to an increase in automation, depending on the specific job. Finally, it could
have little or no effect on small businesses, if an adequate profit margin already exists and the owner is willing to
absorb the additional expense.

Increasing the federal minimum wages only creates more

competition that drives job instability for low skill workers
Semuels 14 (Alana Semuels. Journalist for the The Atlantic and Bachelor of Arts
in American History and Literature from Harvard University. When Raising the
Minimum Wage Isnt Enough. November 25, 2014.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/when-raising-the-minimumwage-isnt-enough/383116/)//EMerz
A study released this summer by researchers at the University of Chicago indicates that the problems that Kulsic

75%
of workers in hourly jobs reported fluctuations in the number of hours they worked
per week, sometimes by more than eight hours. In the food-service industry, 90% of workers said their hours
faces are widespread. Looking at the schedules of adults 26 to 32 in the labor market, the study found that

fluctuated, on average, by 68%. Only one-third of hourly workers were allowed any input into their work schedule,
according to the report. "There's

been a real shift in what proportion of workers are fulltime versus part time," says Susan Lambert, a University of Chicago professor and one
of the authors of the study. "Some workers get full or stable hours, but everyone else is
fighting for more hours, scrambling for more hours. " It's the nature of the post-recession
economy: Fewer workers are getting as many hours as they need. Last month, there were
7 million Americans working part-time for economic reasons -- either because they
could only find part-time work, or because business was slow -- up from 4.3 million in
October 2007. Often, low-wage workers need to be employed for a few months or years before their bosses give
them full-time work. So workers know that quitting a low-paying, part-time job to find another will rarely yield a
better situation. Although they have a job, many workers are left unable to pay the bills, and unable to better their
situation. On a recent weekday, I spoke with two such workers outside a Dunkin' Donuts in a town in a rural, eastern
part of Vermont. They were on a short break, sitting in a car in the bitter cold, and agreed to talk to me if I didn't
use their real names, since both badly need the work. One, let's call her Jessie, is 26 and pregnant. She makes $9
an hour, $1.50 less than she made when she worked for the chain between 2008 and 2011. Jessie was working 40
hours a week all summer, but as tourist season ended, business slowed and she now gets only 30 hours a week.
She found a second job babysitting, but it's made her employer give her even fewer hours, she said, since she isn't
available at all times. "They give you a bunch of crap because you're not working with the schedule and you should

be flexible to the needs of the company," she said. She still gets calls at odd hours telling her that the schedule has
changed, that she is opening on Friday rather than closing, for example. But she puts up with it, because she lives
in a rural town, and "unless I want to be a professional gas station attendant, there's nothing." Neither Jessie nor
her fellow Dunkin' Donuts employee, who I'll call Leslie, had heard of Vermont's Right to Request law. "I definitely
would have made a big stink about it all summer if I had known," Jessie said about the law. Vermont was one of the
first places in the country to try to get a handle on inconsistent scheduling. But more cities and states are looking
into passing laws as well. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors last week unanimously passed the Retail Workers
Bill of Rights, which would require retailers to offer extra hours to current, part-time employees before hiring
additional employees, and would give workers extra pay if their schedule is changed at the last minute. And a
Michigan state senator introduced a bill last month that would require employers to pay workers for extra hours
when they change schedules without notice. A federal "Schedules that Work Act," introduced in Congress this
summer, seeks to solve some of the same problems. "Here's the thing: If we raise wages but don't stabilize people's
schedules, what does it do for them?" says Liz Watson, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center, which
has been pushing for laws that would require more predictable schedules. "This is something that folks are really
conscious of right now; this is something we are going to be hearing more and more about." Protections for
scheduling changes in places like Vermont and San Francisco are sending employers the message, she says, that
they can't continue to operate with such unpredictability in hours. But the experience of Vermont indicates
employers might not be getting the message. Even if wage and hour laws change, companies still operate on the
same profit margins. And store managers are even more pressured to keep a lid on labor costs while dealing with
the ups and downs of consumer demand, said Jennifer Swanberg, a professor of social work at the University of
Maryland. They get data every week about sales for the previous week and how many hours they might need to
staff for the upcoming week, and they need to be cautious about committing to too many hours. "The supervisor is
often the person being squeezed between what senior management wants and what they have to do day-to-day,"
she says. I caught up with Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin at a rally for striking workers from FairPoint, a
telecommunications company, on the steps of the state capitol in Montpelier. Despite the state's record for passing
wage increases during his tenure, he'd nearly lost the governor's race just a few weeks before. When I asked him
about concerns that Vermont's worker-friendly policies weren't really helping workers, he referenced the national
economy. "Low-income Americans are even worse off than they were in the depths of the recession," he said. "The
folks at the top who were doing well during the recession are doing even better now." The increases to the
minimum wage helped Vermonters, but there's a lot more that needs to be done to lower health care costs and
keep wages high enough so that Vermonters can make ends meet, he said. Vermont's single-payer health care
system, one of Shumlin's signature programs, will help keep some of these costs down, he said. "We're up against
an economic tide that's unusual, since this recovery is lifting the boats of those who already had their boats lifted.

increasing wages can also create a whole new set of problems,

as Vermonters are realizing as they see their pay go up by a few cents or a dollar an
hour. There's a "benefits cliff" that workers face, as they earn too much money to be
eligible for state benefits -- but not enough to pay all their bills. J essica Atwood, 27, started
This is our challenge." But

working in June as a housekeeper at an inn in Quechee, in the eastern side of the state, near the New Hampshire
border. At first, she was doing well, at $11 an hour and enough hours in the height of the summer tourist season to
support herself and her 6-year-old son. But her higher earnings bumped her all but off of Vermont's state assistance
programs -- she now barely receives any food stamps or heating assistance. Now that fall foliage season is over and
fewer tourists are visiting Vermont, she only gets a few days of work a week.

Nuclear Power CP

**1nc
Text (WIP): The United States federal government should
provide incentives for the construction of nuclear power plants
and increase funding for research into power plant
improvement and efficiency.
The counterplan is key to nuclear energy
NEDEC 11 Nuclear Engineering Division and Energy Committee, January 2011,
EXPANDING NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED STATES,
https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9c644347-2222-4d2b-a96aa5cf028a9a9d/PS1104.aspx, 7/14/2015, \\BD
CONCLUSIONS The Energy Committee of the ASMEs Knowledge & Community
Sector and ASMEs Nuclear Engineering Division strongly support increased use of
nuclear power in the United States as a way to ensure a continued diversity of
power supplies, ease increasing reliance on natural gas to fuel power plants, and
decrease overall emissions. The stakes are too high to simply allow the status quo with the myriad of
XI.

correctable problems to remain unchanged. Likewise, the road to success is so complex that it demands a

Nuclear power has been proven safe, eficient, and reliable.

The Energy Committee of the ASMEs Knowledge & Community Sector and ASMEs
Nuclear Engineering Division recommends that the federal government, in
cooperation with the private sector, should do what is necessary to preserve and
increase nuclear energys share of the power mix in the United States by
providing tax incentives for construction of new plants, providing funds for
research into power plant improvement and eficiency, and encouraging the
education and training of the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers .
comprehensive strategy.12

Nuclear energy is key to solve biodiversity

Science Daily 14 Science Daily, 12/15/2014, University of Adelaide, Nuclear
should be in the energy mix for biodiversity,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141215094155.htm, 7/14/2015, \\BD
Leading conservation scientists from around the world have called for a substantial
role for nuclear power in future energy-generating scenarios in order to mitigate
climate change and protect biodiversity. In an open letter to environmentalists with
more than 60 signatories, the scientists ask the environmental community to "weigh
up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and
pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is 'green' ." Organized by
ecologists Professor Barry Brook and Professor Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide's Environment

the letter supports their recent article 'Key role for nuclear energy in global
biodiversity conservation', published in the journal Conservation Biology. "Full decarbonization of
the global electricity-generation sector is required soon to avoid the worst ravages
of climate change," says Professor Bradshaw, Director, Ecological Modelling at the Environment Institute and
recently appointed Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change. " Biodiversity is not only threatened
by climate disruption arising largely from fossil-fuel derived emissions, it is also
threatened by land transformation resulting from renewable energy sources, such
as flooded areas for hydro-electricity, agricultural areas needed for biofuels and
Institute,

large spaces needed for wind and solar farms ." In the article, the researchers evaluated land use,
emissions, climate and cost implications of three different energy scenarios: 'business as usual' fossil-fuel
dominated; a high renewable-energy mix excluding nuclear; and an energy mix with a large nuclear contribution
plus some renewable and fossil-fuel sources. They also used "multi-criteria decision-making analysis" to rank
seven major energy types based on costs and benefits, testing the sensitivity of their rankings to bias stemming
from philosophical ideals. "When

compared objectively with renewables, nuclear power

performs as well or better in terms of safety, cost, scaleability, land
transformation and emissions," says Professor Barry Brook, Chair of Climate Change at the Environment
Institute for this study, and now Professor of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. " Not
only does next-generation nuclear power provide emissions-free electricity, it is a
highly concentrated energy source that consumes legacy waste and minimises
impacts to biodiversity compared to all other energy sources ." They argue that there is
strong evidence for supporting advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling as part of a portfolio
of sustainable energy technologies that also includes appropriate use of renewables, energy storage and energy
efficiency. "Idealized

mixes of nuclear and renewables are regionally dependent, and

should be compared objectively without prejudice or preconceived notions of what
is 'green'," says Professor Bradshaw.

--xt Subsidies Solvency

Increasing subsidies is key even if nuclear energy is
economical now, new power plants are not
Cochran 4 - director of NRDC's nuclear programThomas B. Cochran, 4/15/2004,
Natural Resources Defense Council, The Future Role of Nuclear Power in the United
States, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp, 7/14/2015, \\BD
the
last successful order for a U.S. commercial nuclear power plant was in 1973. No
energy generation company in the Unites States has been willing to order and
construct a new nuclear plant in more than thirty years, and none have taken
anything more than preliminary steps towards purchasing and constructing a new
nuclear plant today in the absence of a promise of huge Federal subsidies. This is
On the other hand, the last unit to enter commercial operation was TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1 in June 1996, and

not because of public opposition; not for want of a licensed geologic repository for the disposal of spent fuel; and

it is because new
commercial nuclear power plants are uneconomical in the United States.
not because of the proliferation risks associated with commercial nuclear power. Rather,

The government has already instituted incentives for other

renewables nuclear power incentives are key
REI 10 Renewable Energy Insights 6/1/2010, Proposed New Tax Incentives for
Nuclear Energy, http://www.renewableinsights.com/2010/06/proposed-new-taxincentives-for-nuclear-energy/, 7/14/2015, \\BD
Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have sponsored The American Power Act
(APA), a comprehensive energy and climate change bill. For a summary of the bill, please visit
this alert. Among other things, the APA includes significant incentives for the nuclear power
industry, including several tax provisions intended to encourage construction of new
nuclear power plants. The APA would also establish an expedited procedure for issuing construction and
operating licenses for new nuclear reactors, expand the federal loan guarantee program for nuclear energy

Investments in wind, solar and other

renewable energy projects currently benefit from a 30% federal investment tax
credit and an election to convert the credit into a cash grant from the Treasury
Department. Nuclear power plants do not benefit from these incentives and the
APA would address this deficiency for new nuclear power plants . The following tax
development, and fund spent fuel recycling research.

provisions would be effective for property placed in service on or after the date of enactment.

--xt Research Solvency

New research in nuclear power is key to being economically
viable
Magill 6/16 writer for Climate Centra Bobby Magill, 6/16/2015, Climate Central,
New Research Projects Could Revitalize Nuclear Power,
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nuclear-research-targets-emissions-19113,
7/14/2015, \\BD
Nuclear power, a low-carbon but expensive source of electricity, isnt likely to grow
much in the United States, even as President Obama pushes to slash greenhouse gas emissions from
electric power plants. But the U.S. Department of Energy is betting that $60 million in
new research and development could eventually breathe some new life into nuclear
power in the U.S., helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Obama administrations Clean
Power Plan. Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration expects that number to fall to 16 percent by 2040 with or without the Clean Power Plan.

If finalized in August, the plan will slash emissions from existing power plants. The
$60 million the Department of Energy is dedicating to nuclear research will go to
more than 40 different projects at universities across the U.S. focusing on nuclear
energy modeling, nuclear security and safety and new reactor concepts and fuels.
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking Monday at the Energy Information Administrations
annual energy conference in Washington, said he is bullish on nuclear power as a clean energy
source. However, the high costs of developing nuclear energy have to come down,
he said.

--xt Nuke Power Solves BioD

Nuclear energy solves the environment we have strong
academic support
Brown 14 writer for Climate News Network Paul Brown, 12/26/2014, Climate
News Network, Professors tell greens to accept nuclear power,
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/professors-plead-greens-accept-nuclear-power/,
7/14/2015, \\BD
Seventy-five professors from the worlds leading universities
have signed a letter urging environmentalists to re-think their attitude to nuclear
power as a way to save the planet from climate change and preserve its animals,
plants and fish. Ironically, it is two Australian academics who came up with the research. They come from a
LONDON, 26 December, 2014

country whose government has repudiated the Kyoto Protocol, reversed measures to cut climate change, is one of
the worlds biggest coal exporters, and has no nuclear power. Australia has just recorded the hottest spring since

The two professors are Barry W. Brook, Chair of

Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania, and Corey J.A. Bradshaw,
Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaides
Environment Institute. Their backers include many leading experts on ecology,
biodiversity, evolution and geography from the US, UK, China and India. The letter is
records began 100 years ago.

significant because previous pleas for a role for nuclear power have mostly come from physics professors, who

But this group has no stake in

nuclear power, and their argument is based purely on the need to save the planet
and its species from overheating and excess use of valuable land for renewables.
could reasonably be said to love the technology for its own sake.

Professors Brook and Bradshaw have had a paper published in the magazine Conservation Biology, in which they
evaluated all possible forms of energy generation. Wind and nuclear power had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio.
we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy

The letter urges environmentalists to read the paper, and says the two
professors provide strong evidence for the need to accept a substantial role for
advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling as part of a range
of sustainable energy technologies that also includes appropriate use of
renewables, energy storage and energy efficiency . This multi-pronged strategy for
sustainable energy could also be more cost-effective and spare more land for
biodiversity, as well as reduce non-carbon pollution (aerosols, heavy metals). Given
sources

the historical antagonism towards nuclear energy amongst the environmental community, we accept that this
stands as a controversial position. However, much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the
development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat global climate change, we entreat the
conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources, using
objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is green.
Although renewable energy sources like wind and solar will likely make increasing contributions to future energy
production, these technology options face real-world problems of scalability, cost, material and land use, meaning
that it is too risky to rely on them as the only alternatives to fossil fuels.

Even if we dont access the affs internal links, nuclear energy

is a necessary prerequisite to solving biodiversity means if
the counterplan doesnt solve, its a terminal solvency deficit
for the aff
Connor 1/4 - writer for The IndependentSteve Connor, 1/4/2015, The
Independent, Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-optionsay-top-scientists-9955997.html, 7/14/2015, \\BD

Nuclear power is one of the least damaging sources of energy for the environment,
and the green movement must accept its expansion if the world is to avoid
dangerous climate change, some of the world's leading conservation biologists have
warned. Rising demand for energy will place ever greater burdens on the natural
world, threatening its rich biodiversity, unless societies accept nuclear power as a key part of the
"energy mix", they said. And so the environmental movement and pressure groups such as
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace should drop their opposition to the building of
nuclear power stations. In an open letter published on the Brave New Climate blog, more than 65
biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as

The full gamut of electricitygeneration sources, including nuclear power, must be used to replace the burning of
fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas if the world is to have any chance of mitigating
severe climate change, their letter says. The letter is signed by several leading British academics including
a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment.

Lord May of Oxford, a theoretical biologist at Oxford University and former chief scientific adviser; Professor Andrew
Balmford, a conservation biologist at Cambridge; and Professor Tim Blackburn, an expert in biodiversity at
University College London. As well as reducing the sources of carbon dioxide, the chief man-made greenhouse gas

the expansion of nuclear power will leave more land to

support biodiversity and so curb the extinction of species , they say.
implicated in climate change,

--xt Popular GOP

The GOP loves nuclear energy
Cama 14 energy and environment reporter for The Hill Timothy Cama,
12/6/2014, The Hill, GOP gains put nuclear power back on the table,
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/226209-gop-gains-put-nuclear-powerback-on-the-table, 7/14/2015, \\BD
Republicans and the nuclear power sector are hopeful that GOP control of the
Senate will improve the political landscape for an industry that hasnt opened a new
generator in nearly two decades. As Senate Democrats this week held their tenth hearing on nuclear
safety since Japans Fukushima Daichii meltdown three years ago, Republicans and observers looked
forward to a future with a more business-friendly approach to the industry. Sen. Jim
Inhofe (R-Okla.), long a champion of nuclear power and a critic of environmental
rules, is set to become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
which oversees nuclear safety. The committee is also likely to retain nuclear fans like Sens. Jeff Sessions
(R-Ala.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.). Itll be clearly a more favorable
committee, and there may be some things that we can do to help the industry ,"
Sessions said. An Inhofe aide said the Obama administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have
been far too adversarial to nuclear energy, hurting the industry and making it difficult to justify investments in new
plants. When

you think about federal regulations on the nuclear industry, theyve

certainly had a chilling effect lately, the staffer said. The NRC has been very aggressive in their
regulatory agenda, proposing a number of regulations that arent justified from a cost-benefit standpoint and are
duplicative of other regulations that are already in place. The aide drew a contrast between Inhofe, who wants to
set a high bar for new regulations to prove they are beneficial and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the current
chairwoman of the environment panel. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have also made names

Boxer has pushed for years for NRC to

improve its rules on storing spent nuclear fuel, emergency response procedures for
plants and seismic requirements, among other protections . Republicans and the industry have
for themselves as diligent advocates for nuclear safety.

characterized her response to the Fukushima earthquake, tsunami and meltdown as an overreaction. Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-Tenn.) will also be in a powerful position chairing the appropriations panel responsible for the Energy
Department. Hes known to advocate for nuclear research, which keeps his states Oak Ridge National Laboratory
busy. I

look forward to exploring ways our new Republican majority can clear the
way for nuclear energy to power our 21st-century economy , he said in a statement. To the
industry, a Republican Senate majority increases the odds that Congress will pass a comprehensive energy bill for
the first time in seven years. That could deliver a lot of the nuclear power industrys priorities, said a lobbyist for an
energy company. Plant owners are also looking for Congress to rein in the NRCs rules. We would expect some
more aggressive oversight of the NRC certainly, the lobbyist said. Youve seen that in the House already, and I
would imagine that Sen. Inhofe would follow that line of reasoning. The lobbyist predicted that senators,
especially Democrats, wouldnt stop pressing NRC and the industry to improve rules after Fukushima. But there
will be a recognition that while there are a lot of things to do in response to that, you need to prioritize them, put

Nuclear waste rules could get

new life in the Senate as well. Republicans and businesses want the Energy
Department to finally build a permanent nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada.
them in order and work through it in a deliberative manner, he said.

March Senate bill proves

AP 3/6 Associated Press Associated Press, 3/6/2015, Komo News, Senate OK
bills to promote nuclear energy in Washington,
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Senate-OK-bills-to-promote-nuclear-energy-inWashington-295413471.html, 7/14/2015, \\BD

The Senate has approved a measure to advance nuclear power

as part of Washington's future energy mix. Senate Bill 5113, which passed on a 2721 vote Friday, requires the Commerce Department to coordinate and advance the
sitting and manufacturing of small-scale reactors . Small nuclear reactors are about one-third the
size of traditional nuclear plants, producing less than 300 megawatts. The Senate also passed a
measure, on a 44-5 vote, that would create a nuclear-education program to award
grants for science teachers to attend workshops on nuclear energy and to bring in
nuclear ambassadors" to introduce nuclear science and technology to students in
grades 8-12. Both measures now head to the House for consideration.
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -

Even if the GOP normally hates renewable energy, nuclear

energy is key cost effective
Fisher 13 - former Republican science-policy staffer and legislative director in the
House of Representatives Mischa Fischer, 12/11/2013, The Atlantic, The Republican
Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-reallythe-anti-science-party/281219/, 7/14/2015, \\BD
Conservatives believe many of the policies put forward to address the
problem will lead to unacceptable levels of economic hardship. It's not inherently
anti-scientific to oppose cap and trade or carbon taxes. What most Republicans
object to are policies that unilaterally make it more expensive in the United States
to produce energy, grow food, and transport people and goods but are unlikely to make much long-term
The catch:

difference in the worlds climate, given that other major world economies emit more carbon than the United States

The
more important question on climate change is not how do we eliminate carbon
immediately? but how best do we secure a cleaner environment and more
prosperous world for future generations? It is on this subject that many on the political left deeply
or have much faster growth rates of carbon emissions (China, India, Russia, and Brazil all come to mind).

hold some serious anti-scientific beliefs. Set aside the fact that twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in
astrology, a pseudoscientific medieval farce. Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of
nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistryeven though all of these scientific
breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last
century. Examining greenhouse-gas emissions in exact terms, three of our biggest sources of emissions are
electricity generation, transportation, and agriculture. With widespread adoption of nuclear technology, we could
conceivably cut out more than 70 percent of our total emissions by eliminating the pollution from burning
petroleum for transportation and coal for electricity generation (Nobel Prize-winning physicist Burton Richter

Nuclear power is the only

energy source that can actually meet base-load power requirements for a cost
competitive KW/h price with almost zero carbon emissions . One of the largest hurdles to
explains this in his slightly technical but readable Beyond Smoke and Mirrors).

nuclear energy is storage of byproduct waste, something Obama dealt a huge blow when he halted the
development of Yucca Mountain for what the Government Accountability Office called strictly political reasons.

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly supported moving forward with Yucca

Mountain.

--xt Popular Dems

Even Democrats like nuclear energy
Garber 9 writer for US News Kent Garber, 11/30/2009, US News, Democrats
Change Tune on Nuclear Energy,
http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/11/30/democrats-change-tuneon-nuclear-energy, 7/14/2015, \\BD
During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear

But in the year since being

elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be
embracing nuclear power. Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last
power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject.

spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some

But many less high-profile

moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and
on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of
advancing their goals on energy and climate policy. Perhaps the most telling sign
is that representatives of the nuclear industry are giving the administration
relatively high marks for its nuclear policies thus far. "This administration has been
very seriously engaged on nuclear issues," says Alex Flint, the Nuclear Energy Institute's top
critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration.

lobbyist. "There is no longer a political stigma associated with it.""We are pleased with the of support the
administration has expressed," says Buzz Miller, who heads up nuclear development for Southern Nuclear, which
operates three nuclear plants in the Southeast and is starting to work on building two more reactors near Augusta,
Ga. New reactors, according to industry estimates, will probably cost at least $6 billion each. Like several other
nuclear companies, Southern has applied for financial help from the Department of Energy. It's also still waiting for

But it's on funding and policy issues that

Democrats are proving surprisingly supportive. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal California Democrat,
final approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

has included a whole set of goodies for nuclear energy in her climate bill in an effort to win Republicans' and
moderate Democrats'support. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the bill's cosponsor, recently penned

And earlier
this month, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and Republican Sen. Lamar
Alexander of Tennessee proposed legislation to double the U.S. production of
nuclear power in the next 20 years. All these proposals are notable for the emerging political reality
they represent. Nuclear power is low in carbon emissions, domestically generated, and
it's particularly popular in the Southeast and some Midwestern states. That means liberal
an op-ed with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for expanding the industry.

Democrats, who have often railed against nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste it produces, will almost
certainly have to fork over money for nuclear to win the votes for their climate bill.

Prison CPs

**Prison Healthcare
Text: The fifty states of the United States should pass geriatric
release legislation.
The counterplan reduces prison populations and balances state
budgets
Chokshi 2013 (Niraj; State spending on prison health care is exploding. Here's
why.; Oct 30; www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/30/statespending-on-prison-health-care-is-exploding-heres-why/; kdf)
Health care and prisons are two of the biggest drivers of state spending. So, when you
throw them together you get a whole lot of state spending. The median growth on prison health care
among states was slightly more than 50 percent from 2001 to 2008, according to official data from
44 states analyzed as part of a joint initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Those 44 states spent $36.8 billion on prisons in 2008 , and health care accounted for more
than one-sixth of that spending. (2008 was the last year covered in the study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which Pew used for

Three factors in particular are driving up state prison health-care costs, according to Pew:
aging inmates, a prevalence of physical and mental illness and the costly nature of
delivering health care to a prisons inmates. The nations elderly prison population is still relatively small,
its analysis.)

but its taken up an increasingly larger share of the total population. In 1999, about 3.4 percent of the prison population was 55 and
over. By 2011, it was 8.6 percent. And an older population means more expensive health care. In Michigan, a state study found that

health care for inmates ages 55 to 59 cost more than four times more
caring for prisoners ages 65 or older costs about $8,565
per inmate each year. The average annual health-care cost for Georgian prisoners under 65? $961 per inmate. So,
whats a state to do? According to experts interviewed by Pew, states are trying to rein in costs by
providing remote health care, outsourcing it altogether, enrolling prisoners in
Medicaid and paroling elderly or sick inmates. Mississippis three-year-old program to enroll prisoners in
Medicaid generates about $6 million annually in federal reimbursements . Louisiana saved $2.6 million over
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 through federal Medicaid reimbursements. And New Yorks
comptroller estimates that the state could save up to $20 million annually through such
reimbursements. Under the new federal health-care law, eligibility for Medicaid will be expanded in 25 states, meaning
more inmates will be able to qualify, offsetting state prison health-care costs. Releasing low-risk older prisoners
could help drive down costs and prison size , too. Ohio expects to save more than $46
million and slash the prison population by 7 percent over three years by granting
parole to more of its elderly prison population. New York, Illinois, California and Connecticut have also
in a single year (2009)

than for those aged 20 to 24. In Georgia,

pursued similar policies for low-risk elderly and/or sick inmates.

--xt: Prisons are main reason for deficits

Geriatric release is the best way to balance state budgets
Cray 2012 (David; Elderly inmates: Aging prison population strains tight state
budges; Jan 27; www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/elderlyinmates_n_1236028.html; kdf)
In corrections systems nationwide, officials are grappling with decisions about
geriatric units, hospices and medical parole as elderly inmates with their high rates of illness and
infirmity make up an ever increasing share of the prison population. At a time of tight state
budgets, it's a trend posing difficult dilemmas for policymakers. They must address soaring
medical costs for these older inmates and ponder whether some can be safely released before their
sentences expire. The latest available figures from 2010 show that 8 percent of the prison
population 124,400 inmates was 55 or older, compared to 3 percent in 1995 , according to
a report being released Friday by Human Rights Watch. This oldest segment grew at six times the
rate of the overall prison population between 1995 and 2010, the report says. "Prisons were never
NEW YORK

designed to be geriatric facilities," said Jamie Fellner, a Human Rights Watch special adviser who wrote the report.
"Yet U.S. corrections officials now operate old age homes behind bars." The main reasons for the trend, Fellner said,
are the long sentences, including life without parole, that have become more common in recent decades, boosting
the percentage of inmates unlikely to leave prison before reaching old age, if they leave at all. About one in 10
state inmates is serving a life sentence; an additional 11 percent have sentences longer than 20 years. The report
also notes an increase in the number of offenders entering prison for crimes committed when they were over 50. In
Ohio, for example, the number of new prisoners in that age group jumped from 743 in 2000 to 1,815 in 2010,
according to the report. Fellner cited the case of Leonard Hudson, who entered a New York prison at age 68 in 2002
on a murder conviction and will be eligible for parole when he's 88. He's housed in a special unit for men with
dementia and other cognitive impairments, Fellner said. A.T. Wall, director of the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections and president of the Association of State Correctional Administrators, said he and his colleagues
regularly exchange ideas on how to cope with the surging numbers of older prisoners. "We are accustomed to
managing large numbers of inmates, and it's a challenge to identify particular practices that need to be put into
place for a subset," he said. "There are no easy solutions." Wall said prison officials confront such questions as
whether to retrofit some cells with grab bars and handicap toilets, how to accommodate inmates' wheelchairs, and
how to deal with inmates who no longer understand instructions. "Dementia can set in, and an inmate who was
formerly easy to manage becomes very difficult to manage," he said. States are trying to meet the needs. Some
examples: _Washington state opened an assisted living facility at its Coyote Ridge prison complex in 2010, with a
capacity of 74 inmates. It's reserved for inmates with a disability who are deemed to pose little security risk. _The
Louisiana State Penitentiary has had a hospice program for more than a decade, staffed by fellow prisoners who
provide dying inmates with care ranging from changing diapers to saying prayers. _In Massachusetts, a new
corrections master plan proposes one or more new facilities to house aging inmates who need significant help with
daily living. Some critics object, saying inmates shouldn't get specialized care that might not be available or
affordable for members of the public. _Montana's corrections department is seeking bids for a 120-bed prison that
would include assisted-living facilities for some elderly inmates and others who need special care. In Texas,
legislators have been considering several options for addressing the needs of infirm, elderly inmates. State Rep.
Jerry Madden, chairman of the House Corrections Committee, said no decisions have been made as the experts try
to balance cost factors and public safety. "You can't just generalize about these prisoners," he said. "Some are still
extremely dangerous, some may not be.... Some you wouldn't want in the same assisted living facility with your
parents or grandparents." Fellner, who visited nine states and 20 prisons during her research, said corrections
officials often were constrained by tight budgets, lack of support from elected officials, and prison architecture not
designed to accommodate the elderly. She noted that prison policies traditionally were geared to treat all inmates
on an equal basis. So it may not be easy for prison officials to consider special accommodations for aging inmates,
whether it be extra blankets, shortcuts to reduce walking distance, or sparing them from assignments to upper
bunks. The report said the number of aging prisoners will continue to grow unless there are changes to tough-oncrime policies such as long mandatory sentences and reduced opportunities for parole. "How are justice and public
safety served by the continued incarceration of men and women whose bodies and minds have been whittled away
by age?" Fellner asked. One of the problems facing prisons is that many of their health care staff lack expertise in
caring for the elderly, according to Linda Redford, director of the geriatric education center at the University of
Kansas Medical Center. "It's a big struggle for them to keep up," said Redford, who has helped train prison staff and
inmates in geriatric care. "They're used to having to deal with issues of younger prisoners, such as HIV and
substance abuse," she said. Under a Supreme Court ruling, inmates are guaranteed decent medical care, but they

inmates 65
and older had an average yearly medical cost of $8,565, compared with $961 for
those under 65.
lack their own insurance and states must pay the full cost. In Georgia, according to Fellner's report,

Prison growth is the cause of budget overstretch

Skolnick 2011 (Adam; Runaway prison costs thrash state budgets; Feb 9;
www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/09/Runaway-Prison-Costs-Thrash-StateBudgets; kdf)
States across the country are grappling with massive
budget shortfalls, much of which can be credited to the runaway growth of prison
budgets over the past 25 years. At $50 billion spent on corrections a year nationwide, its the secondlargest state expenditure behind Medicaid . To put it another way, one out of every 15 state dollars is
The prison system in the U.S. is in crisis mode.

spent on corrections in this country. Not coincidentally, one in 31 American adults are adrift in this bloated
corrections matrix, stretching resources razor thin. Now swing the recession sledgehammer, and you have a
nationwide crisis requiring states to come up with creative solutions to meet enormous budget deficits. Californias
prison system, the second largest in the country, has had its budget slashed for two years running, and its prisons
filled to over 160 percent capacity. Thirty-three of them are operating at double capacity. Temporary beds, half of
which are filled by probation or parole violators, are triple stacked in gyms and classrooms and crowding out sound
rehabilitation programs. Sometimes two and three inmates share a cell designed for one man. Recent court rulings
have mandated the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reduce the prison population to
137.5 percent capacity by 2012. All of which has forced the state to fashion solutions that look, at first blush, like a
gamble. It costs $44,563 to incarcerate a prisoner for a year in California nearly the same price as a year at
Harvard University with room and board. According to state projections nearly 23,000 prisoners in California have
been released on what has been called Non-Revocable Parole (NRP) over the past year. These prisoners, all of whom
are non-violent and deemed to be low risk re-offenders, will not be released early, but once they are they will be on
their own to sink or swim in the community, with no oversight from parole officers. The idea is to ease the case
burden on the parole system, reduce the Department of Corrections budget and perhaps most importantly, reduce

It costs $44,563 (the average for the

U.S. is $28,817) to incarcerate a prisoner for a year in California nearly the same price as a
overcrowding in prisons. There is certain to be some budgetary benefit.

year at Harvard University with room and board. And nationally half of all state prisoners are incarcerated for
probation or parole violations. However, there is no conclusive research to suggest how these ex-cons will function
in society with no oversight from a parole officer. Unemployment among ex-offenders is common, and many will
likely end up on state welfare. The first 14 months are critical for an ex-cons transition back into the community,
and having no state help with job placement or continued rehabilitation could put them right back behind bars.
Think of this economy were in. We have people with masters degrees applying for entry-level jobs. How is a
prisoner going to compete? asks Terry Thornton of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Which begs the question, would leaving them out to dry actually cut state spending, or simply transfer it? California
is not alone in the wilderness. South Carolinas prison population tripled between 1983 and 2009.
Over that same period of time, spending increased by 500 percent to $394 million, and not only did recidivism

With 3,200
additional inmates projected by 2014, an additional $458 million in spending would
be required. The good news is that all this pressure has produced some policy gems that may just reform the
actually increase, the FBI ranked South Carolina at the top of per capita violent crime rate.

American prison system forever. Think of this economy were in. We have people with Masters degrees applying for
entry-level jobs. How is a prisoner going to compete? Enter Pew Center on the States. What we do is a year-long
process, says Pews Adam Gelb. In a bipartisan working group, legislators from both sides of the aisle, corrections
officials and Pew analysts look at the data, formulate new policy and get it to the governors desk. The result in
South Carolina was the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010. It included sentencing
reform, and a risk-and-needs assessment tool that determines the likelihood of an inmate to re-offend prior to
parole. It strengthened parole supervision to set up newly released inmates for success in the community, and
make it more difficult for non-violent parolees to be sent back to prison. The law is projected to save the state up to
$175 million in construction costs and avoid more than $66 million in operating costs during the next five years.
Another historically conservative state is hoping to follow suit. Louisiana is the poster child for criminal justice
improvement, says Louisiana State Secretary of Public Safety and Corrections, Jimmy Le Blanc. We lock up more
than any other state per 100,000 and our rate of violent crime is higher than most, so this hard on crime sell just

isnt working. Put it all together and you have a state with overcrowded prisons and parish jails. Part of the
problem is mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses, a nationwide scourge. The longer youve
been in prison, the quicker you go back, says Le Blanc. Thats a proven fact. Alison Shames, from the VERA
Center for Justice, agrees. If Im a drug offender, Ill be a better drug offender with more criminal friends, less
family ties, less options, and Ill be a greater risk to society if go to prison for three years instead of one.
Recidivism is a vicious cycle for taxpayers as well as prisoners, but its not completely unavoidable. When Le Blanc
served as warden at Dixon State Prison, he brought the recidivism rate down to 38 percent from 47 percent on the
strength of progressive re-entry initiatives. Most of it is common sense stuff, he says. We make sure our inmates
have a residence plan, a job or a potential job, and a continuum of care for substance abuse and mental health.
Before release, inmates also go through a basic risk-and-needs assessment, like the one implemented in South
Carolina, to determine what kind of education or vocational training they want or need and theres a community
care component too. Le Blanc is even working to get some parole and probation cases into the hands of community
social workers rather than law enforcement officers. Its all very warm and fuzzy, yet such policies have been
championed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Its conservative states with
conservative leaders that are out front tackling this issue, says Gelb. The trend started in Texas, when in 2007 the
state scuttled a plan to build eight new prisons at a cost of $2 billion and replaced it with beefed up community
treatment and supervision that cost $241 million. The reason is clear, according to Le Blanc. If we get these things
accomplished, its going to bring down recidivism. Which in turn will ease the states financial burden. Typically
parole programs cost taxpayers $7.47 per day per parolee, while prisons cost $78.95 per day per inmate
nationwide. Getting it accomplished wont be easy. Le Blanc points to a statewide $1.6 billion budget shortfall,
which translates as a 35 percent cut, or $151 million, from the corrections budget. Thankfully, hard times have
ushered what Le Blanc sees as a new era of political collaboration in Baton Rouge, and he promises to maintain his
re-entry initiatives. If we want to reduce the prison population we have to maintain our parole and probation
divisions, he says. Seventy percent of parole or probation revocations happen within the first 14 months. Thats
for violent and non-violent offenders. They need to be connected, followed up with. You cant just let them cold
turkey out of prison. Yet thats what California continues to do. Theres no argument that California is a state with
its back against the wall. The budget for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was slashed by $1 billion
in 2010, and under Governor Browns new budget the hope is $1.4 billion more can be saved in 2011, but that
includes a $150 million reduction in rehabilitation programs at a time when recidivism is at an alarming rate 67
percent and 55 percent of Californias inmates are locked up for parole or probation violations rather than a new

Organizations like Pew and VERA and a growing chorus of conservative

politicians argue that it is much smarter to couple non-revocable parole with an
investment in beefed up parole programs that include pillars like substance abuse ,
crime.

job placement and cutting edge cognitive behavioral therapy programs that according to Gelb, help identify
triggers that spur criminal behavior and train parolees how to avoid them and maximize positive influences in their
lives. Typically parole programs like these cost taxpayers $7.47 per day per parolee, while prisons cost $78.95 per

Trouble is those budget cuts are coming. And what could be

easier than cutting programs that help convicted felons? Asks Gelb. But that could be
pennywise and pound foolish. Especially if your goal is to get taxpayers a better
return on their security and law enforcement investment. - See more at:
day per inmate nationwide.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/02/09/Runaway-Prison-Costs-Thrash-State-Budgets?
page=0%2C2#sthash.sDlXYMmU.dpuf

at: States have already done this

States that have already done geriatric release have too much
red tapecp fixes that
McGarry 2010 (Peggy [Director, Center on Sentencing and Corrections @ Vera];
It's about time; Apr; www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Its-abouttime-aging-prisoners-increasing-costs-and-geriatric-release.pdf; kdf)

Throughout the United States, state corrections systems face significant challenges: many prisons are operating
over capacity, budgets have been cut, and decisions about who goes to prison and for how long are made by
policymakers who often lack good information about the impact of their actions. State legislatures and corrections
departments are tackling these challenges by looking for new ways to reduce their prison populations without
jeopardizing public safety. Some states, like Colorado, are considering evidence-based riskassessment tools to help
paroling authorities make better-informed decisions about safe releases, while others, like New York, are using such

an underused strategy that is

increasingly attracting attention as a way to reduce the prison population, save costs, and
maintain public safety. Geriatric and medical release policies target inmates whose
advanced age or waning health limit the risk they pose to the community . Because the
cost of maintaining these individuals in state prisons is significantly higher than that for
younger inmates, releasing older inmates has the potential to save corrections departments
substantial amounts of money. Nevertheless, many states that have enacted such policies have not
tools to inform supervision and violation decisions. This report examines

realized a decrease in their prison populations or the savings they may have anticipated. The lessons from this
analysis of mostly ineffectual geriatric release provisions can also be applied to other areas of criminal justice
policy. Perhaps the most important lesson is that intent is not enough to achieve a legislative or agency policys

Policymakers must use available data to understand their corrections

population and not be overly restrictive in defining the subset eligible for early
release. Instead, they must craft policies and legislation to ensure that exceptions and
procedural requirements do not overwhelm a provisions intent. To achieve their maximum
desired impact.

impact, policies must be based on evidence and proven outcomes. Finally, legislation and policy change alone are
usually not sufficient: attention and resources must also be directed toward careful implementation.

at: Why 55?

55 is the best age to start- multiple warrants
Vera Institute 2010 (It's about time; Apr;
www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Its-about-time-agingprisoners-increasing-costs-and-geriatric-release.pdf; kdf)
There is no national consensus about the age at which an inmate qualifies as old or elderly. The U.S. Census

the National Commission on

Correctional Health Care uses 55 as its threshold for elderly inmates. 7 At least 27
Bureau defines the general elderly population as those 65 and older, but

states have a definition for who is an older prisoner, according to a recent survey: 15 states used 50 years as the

Although most
50-year-olds are not considered elderly, the aging process appears to accelerate for
people who are incarcerated.9 Some contributing elements include a persons poor physical or mental
cutoff, five states used 55, four states used 60, two states used 65, and one used age 70.8

health prior to incarceration often the result of factors such as substance abuse, lack of access to health care or
inadequate care, poverty, and lack of educationas well as the physical and psychological stresses associated with
prison life itself. Specific stressors include separation from family and friends; the prospect of living a large portion
of ones life in confinement; and the threat of victimization, which disproportionately affects older inmates.10 For

correctional administrators, health practitioners, and academics agree

that an incarcerated persons physiological age may exceed his or her chronological
age.11
these reasons,

at: Release violent criminals

Violent criminals wont be released
Vera Institute 2010 (It's about time; Apr;
www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Its-about-time-agingprisoners-increasing-costs-and-geriatric-release.pdf; kdf)
In developing geriatric release statutes and procedures, policymakers often exclude
individuals convicted of violent offenses or sex offenses and those sentenced to life
imprisonment. For these populations, punishment as a goal of incarceration may outweigh considerations of
correctional cost savings or the prospect that age has rendered a person less dangerous. Although this rationale is
understandable, the result is that geriatric release policies may apply to only a small subset of older inmates. In
2008, one in 11 U.S. prisonersmore than 140,000 individualswere serving a life sentence; 29 percent of them
(roughly 41,000 people) have no possibility of parole.29 In Pennsylvania, a 2003 study of inmates 50 and older
found that older prisoners were more likely to have been incarcerated for serious offenses, including rape, murder,
robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary; 66 percent were serving maximum sentences of 10 years or more, with
21 percent serving life sentences.30 A 2006 report on North Carolina prisoners showed that almost 60 percent of
inmates ages 50 and older were serving sentences for violent or sex crimes, including sexual assault, habitual
felonies, and murder in the first or second degree. Most were serving a sentence of life or of 10 years to life.31 As
larger numbers of people convicted of serious and violent crimes grow old in prison, categorically excluding them
from consideration may result in fewer releases and less potential cost savings.

at: Not Effective

States will quickly learn how to make the CP effective
Vera Institute 2010 (It's about time; Apr;
www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Its-about-time-agingprisoners-increasing-costs-and-geriatric-release.pdf; kdf)
The need to reduce corrections costs without jeopardizing public safety provides
states with an opportunity to introduce or refine geriatric release policies . The challenge
is to make existing policies more effective and to identify and assess new approaches to managing an aging

States with provisions for geriatric release can lead the

way by making greater use of them and evaluating the outcomes. States that have
not created such policies can test innovative strategies and help the criminal justice
field learn more about what works, particularly with regard to reentry and
community supervision for an elderly population that is ill, infirm, or both .
population that is expected to grow.

**Mandatory Sentencing 1NC

The United States federal government should eliminate
mandatory sentencing and repeat offender laws. The states of
the United States should revise their truth-in-sentencing laws
in order to grant increased decision-making to the criminal
justice system.
Raphael and Stoll 2014 (Steven [Goldman School of Public Policy, UC
Berkeley] and Michael [Luskin School of Public Affiars, UCLA]; A New Approach to
Reducing Incarceration While Maintaining Low Rates of Crime; May;
www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/v5_THP_RaphaelStoll_DiscPaper.
pdf; kdf)
We propose that states take a hard look at their truth-in-sentencing laws and either
modify the parameters to reduce scope and severity or abandon the practice
entirely. To be specific, states could alter the minimum percent of sentences to be
served, reduce the scope of the set of crimes subject to truth-in-sentencing
constraints, reduce the scope of truth-insentencing constraints by applying them to
repeat offenders only, or abandon the practice altogether . These changes would permit parole
review for greater proportions of inmates in indeterminate sentencing states while increasing the proportion of

Making these
changes would necessarily increase the discretion of parole boards in the decisionmaking process and allow criminal justice professionals to have a greater role in
deciding who is and who is not ready for release. Such a change would free the hands of
inmates able to earn good time credits in states with more-structured sentencing practices.

corrections authorities to release those inmates who, through objective risk assessment, are deemed low risk. The
potential benefits from such a change are illustrated by a recent provocative analysis of prison release decisions in
Georgia conducted by Ilyana Kuziemko (2013). Using administrative data on prison releases and recidivism,
Kuziemko documents the following: First, recidivism risk declines with time in prison, likely due to the aging of the
inmate and the well-documented fact that the propensity to offend declines sharply with age. Second ,

parole

boards are quite good at distinguishing high-risk from low-risk inmates

based on
observation during the inmates incarceration, and on information that extend beyond the inmates age,
demographics, and criminal history on entering prison. Third, when discretion is wrested from parole boards via
truth-in-sentencing type practices, inmates engage in more institutional misconduct, are less likely to participate in
rehabilitative programming, and are more likely to recidivate after release. Through a series of back-of-the-envelope
calculations, Kuziemko concludes that restricting the discretion of parole boards both increases the incarceration
rate through longer sentences and increases crime through higher recidivism rates among those with little incentive

Truth-in-sentencing not only creates allocative inefficiency,

but may also increase the postrelease offending of some inmates beyond what it
otherwise would be. The first factor occurs due to the one-size-fits-all nature of this sentencing practice.
to rehabilitate while incarcerated.

Namely, regardless of ones behavior, efforts made toward rehabilitation, and objective signals of low recidivism
risk, the practice ties the hands of parole authorities, leading to incarceration spells that are unjustifiably long for
some inmates. The second factor occurs through the elimination of the incentive to behave and conform.3

Precluding the possibility of early release through parole eliminates incentives to not
engage in misconduct and to participate in programming , increasing the likelihood that the
individual will be returned to custody soon after release. Of course, one could increase the role of parole boards in
release decisions in a more-structured manner while creating incentives for inmates to engage in rehabilitated
programming and to behave in a positive manner while incarcerated. Moreover, such an effort could be targeted at
offenders who commit relatively less-serious crimes rather than those who come under the purview of truth-insentencing laws. For example, Pennsylvanias Recidivism Reduction Incentive (RRI) legislation passed in 2008
creates a parallel sentencing structure for relatively low-risk inmates whereby in addition to the specified minimum
and maximum sentences handed down at sentencing, offenders are given an alternative RRI minimum sentence
below the standard minimum. For the lower minimum to apply, the inmate must refrain from institutional

misconduct and must participate in several predetermined rehabilitative programs to be deemed RRI certified.
Through 2013 the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections estimates that roughly 9,000 inmates have served
approximately five months less on average due to the RRI program, saving the state roughly $14,000 per inmate
(Bucklen, Bell, and Russell 2014). In a nonexperimental evaluation of the program, RRIcertified inmates are found to
be rearrested over the threeyear period following their release at a rate that is 8 percentage points lower than that
for a matched comparison group. There is no statistically measurable effect on reincarceration, however. Moreover,
because the program is targeted toward relatively low-risk inmates with short sentences, a sizable minority are
released prior to participating in the prescribed programming. Take inventory of and reevaluate legislatively

Mandatory sentencing laws specify minimum prison

sentences for specific offenses or offenses with aggravating circumstances that are
targeted by specific legislation. Stemen, Rengifo, and Wilson (2006) note that mandatory minimum
mandated minimum sentences.

sentences usually constrain both the decision regarding whether an offender should be sentenced to prison and the
minimum amount of time that an inmate must serve. Between 1975 and 2002 every state, the District of Columbia,
and the federal government adopted some form of mandatory minimum sentencing targeted at a specific offense.

Nearly three quarters of all states and the federal government enacted mandatory
minimum sentences for possession or trafficking of illegal drug s. Mandatory minimum
penalties are also often encountered for violent offenses, offenses involving weapons, carjackings, offenses

Federal law is riddled with

mandatory minimum sentences, with disproportionate mandatory minimums for
drug offenses involving crack cocaine receiving perhaps the greatest scrutiny. Closely related to mandatory
victimizing minors, and offenses committed in close proximity to schools.

minimum sentences are state laws mandating specific sentencing for repeat offenders. Repeat-offender laws refer
to sentence enhancements for criminal offenders who repeatedly commit crimes. The laws are often described
using the baseball metaphor three strikes and youre out, conveying the idea that those who serially offend may
ultimately face life terms. Repeat-offender laws first appeared in most states during the early- to mid-1990s under
the label of three strikes, with the first in Washington state in 1993. By the close of the twentieth century, roughly
half of all states had such provisions in their sentencing systems. The provisions of actual repeat-offender laws vary
considerably across states. For example, in California a second striker (someone with a prior conviction for a
violent offense convicted of a second felony) receives a sentence equal to twice the sentence normally handed
down for the specific second offense. Until recently, all third strikers (someone with two prior violent felony
convictions) were given an indeterminate sentence of twenty-five years to life for any additional felony offenses.4 In
contrast, Pennsylvanias three strikes law is triggered only when an offender who has already been convicted of
two prior felonies is subsequently convicted of one of eight specified offenses. Moreover, the law gives the
sentencing court discretion to increase the sentence for the underlying offense by up to twenty-five years.

Similar to truth-in-sentencing provisions, mandatory minimum sentences and

repeat-offender laws often tie the hands of criminal justice actors (judges and parole
boards, in particular) and greatly increase the bargaining power of prosecutors in criminal proceedings. In
addition to increasing the likelihood of a prison term and sentence length for
convicted offenders, research has shown that these practices often result in stiffer
penalties for those convicted of lesser yet related offenses than those covered
directly by the statute, which likely reflects a net-widening with regard to the range of offenses
experiencing enhanced penalties under the law (Owens 2011).

--xt Solves aff

The counterplan reduces the socially harmful components of
prison sentencing
Raphael and Stoll 2014 (Steven [Goldman School of Public Policy, UC
Berkeley] and Michael [Luskin School of Public Affiars, UCLA]; A New Approach to
Reducing Incarceration While Maintaining Low Rates of Crime; May;
www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/v5_THP_RaphaelStoll_DiscPaper.
pdf; kdf)

The explosive growth in the U.S. incarceration rate, coupled with crime-fighting benefits that rapidly diminish with
the scale of incarceration, implies that there is currently substantial room to reduce incarceration rates without

a selective scaling back of the use

of incarceration as punishment would likely have relatively small effects on crime
rates. However, such a scaling back would reduce corrections costs and generate
budgetary savings that could be diverted to other, more-cost-effective, and less-socially
harmful interventions. While there are multiple reasons why we use prison to punish felony offenders,
impacting crime. Even absent a compensating social investment,

crime control is clearly high on the list of objectives and motivations. That being said, the policy options that we
outline below are intended to increase the general allocative efficiency of the use of prison bedsthat is, to

we
propose two broad policy strategies: introduce a greater degree of discretion into
U.S. sentencing and parole practices, and incentivize local authorities to reserve
prison for those who pose the greatest risk.
increase the degree to which prison is reserved for those who pose the greatest risk to society. Hence,

--xt Solves Racism

Mandatory minimums are the largest form of structural racism
in the prison system
McCurdy 2006 (Jesselyn [ACLU Legislative counsel]; Testimony of Jesselyn
McCurdy, ACLU Legislative Counsel, At A United States Sentencing Commission
Hearing On Cocaine and Sentencing Policy; Nov 14; https://www.aclu.org/racialjustice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/testimony-jesselynmccurdy-aclu-le; kdf)
The 100 to 1 Disparity in Federal Cocaine Sentencing Has a Racially Discriminatory
Impact and has had a Devastating Impact on Communities of Color Data on the racial
disparity in the application of mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine is
particularly disturbing. African Americans comprise the vast majority of those
convicted of crack cocaine offenses, while the majority of those convicted for powder cocaine offenses
are white. This is true, despite the fact that whites and Hispanics form the majority of crack users. For example, in
2003, whites constituted 7.8% and African Americans constituted more than 80% of the defendants sentenced
under the harsh federal crack cocaine laws, while more than 66% of crack cocaine users in the United States are
white or Hispanic. Due in large part to the sentencing disparity based on the form of the drug, African Americans

The average sentence for a

crack cocaine offense in 2003, which was 123 months, was 3.5 years longer than
the average sentence of 81 months for an offense involving the powder form of the
drug. Also due in large part to mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, from 1994 to 2003, t he
difference between the average time African American offenders served in prison
increased by 77%, compared to an increase of 28% for white drug offenders. African
serve substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than do whites.

Americans now serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense at 58.7 months, as whites do for a violent

The fact that African American defendants received the

mandatory sentences more often than white defendants who were eligible for a
mandatory minimum sentence, further supports the racially discriminatory
impact of mandatory minimum penalties. Over the last 20 years, federal and state drug laws
offense at 61.7 months.

and policies have also had a devastating impact on women. In 2003, 58% of all women in federal prison were
convicted of drug offenses, compared to 48% of men. The growing number of women who are incarcerated
disproportionately impacts African American and Hispanic women. African American womens incarceration rates for
all crimes, largely driven by drug convictions, increased by 800% from 1986, compared to an increase of 400% for
women of all races for the same period. Sentencing policies, particularly the mandatory minimum for low-level
crack offenses, subject women who are low-level participants to the same or harsher sentences as the major
dealers in a drug organization. The collateral consequences of the nations drug policies, racially targeted
prosecutions, mandatory minimums, and crack sentencing disparities have had a devastating effect on African
American men, women, and families. Recent data indicates that African Americans make up only 15% of the
countrys drug users, yet they comprise 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59% of those convicted, and 74%
of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense. In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum
sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher
than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher. As law
enforcement focused its efforts on crack offenses, especially those committed by African Americans, a dramatic
shift occurred in the overall incarceration trends for African Americans, relative to the rest of the nation,
transforming federal prisons into institutions increasingly dedicated to the African American community. The effects
of mandatory minimums not only contribute to these disproportionately high incarceration rates, but also separate
fathers from families, separate mothers with sentences for minor possession crimes from their children, leave
children behind in the child welfare system, create massive disfranchisement of those with felony convictions, and
prohibit previously incarcerated people from receiving social services such as welfare, food stamps, and access to
public housing. For example, in 2000 there were approximately 791,600 African American men in prisons and jails.

The fact that

there are more African American men under the jurisdiction of the penal system
than in college has led scholars to conclude that our crime policies are a major
That same year, there were only 603,032 African American men enrolled in higher education.

contributor to the disruption

of the African American family. One of every 14 African American children

has a parent locked up in prison or jail today, and African American children are 9 times more likely to have a parent
incarcerated than white children. Moreover, approximately 1.4 million African American males 13% of all adult
African American men are disfranchised because of felony convictions. This represents 33% of the total
disfranchised population and a rate of disfranchisement that is 7 times the national average. In addition, as a result
of federal welfare legislation in 1996, there is a lifetime prohibition on the receipt of welfare for anyone convicted of

The effect of mandatory minimums

for a felony conviction, especially in the instance of simple possession or for very
low-level involvement with crack cocaine, can be devastating, not just for the
accused, but also for their entire family.
a drug felony, unless a state chooses to opt out of this provision.

at: CP links to politics

The counterplan is bipartisan
Gingrich and Nolan 2014 (Newt and Pat; An opening for bipartisanship on
prison refom; Jul 14; online.wsj.com/articles/newt-gingrich-and-pat-nolan-anopening-for-bipartisanship-on-prison-reform-1405380090; kdf)
The reforms have developed in the states, as conservatives tend to prefer. But n ow

that there is proof that

prison reform can work, the debate has gone from an ideological discussion to
evidence-based changes that can be applied to the federal system. Republican
Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, who have seen the benefits firsthand in Texas, have been joined
by Republican Senate colleagues such as Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake and Ron Johnson in
backing one or more prison-reform bills. Two bills, the Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act (S.
1675) and the Smarter Sentencing Act (S. 1410) have already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and await
action by the full Senate. In the House, Republican Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Ral Labrador, Trey Gowdy and others are

This push for reforming the federal prison system has support
on the other side of the aisle as well. Such liberal stalwarts as Sens. Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy
and Sheldon Whitehouse, and Reps. John Conyers, Bobby Scott and Jerrold Nadler have signaled their
backing. On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security HOMS -5.88% will
hear from witnesses who are experts on state reforms. With luck, their testimony will provide even
more impetus for Congress to take advantage of the unusually strong bipartisanship in
the air on Capitol Hill and fix a criminal-justice system badly in need of repair.
backing similar legislation.

**Prison Labor CP
Text: The USFG should increase the minimum wage for
prisoners doing prison labor. (still working on this)
Cheap prison labor is uniquely rooted in institutionalized
racism
Browne 7 [Jaron Browne. Organizer with People Organized to Win Employment
Rights (POWER). Rooted in Slavery: Prison Labor Exploitation. 2007.
http://reimaginerpe.org/node/856]//EMerz
It may surprise some people that as

the number of people without jobs increases, the number

of working people actually increasesthey become prison laborers. Everyone
inside has a job. There are currently over 70 factories in Californias 33 prisons alone. Prisoners do
everything from textile work and construction, to manufacturing and service work .
Prisoners make shoes, clothing, and detergent; they do dental lab work, recycling, metal production, and wood
production; they operate dairies, farms, and slaughterhouses. United States Prisons mirror Free Enterprise Zones in

Prisoners
are not protected by minimum wage laws or overtime, and are explicitly barred from the right to
organize and collectively bargain. In fact, t he conditions for the overwhelmingly Black and
Latino men and women inside the United States prison system are so similar to that
of workers in the maquiladoras and sweatshops of the global South that in 1995,
Oregon politicians were even courting Nike to move their production from Indonesia
into Oregon prisons. We propose that (Nike) take a look at their transportation costs and their labor costs,
Africa, Asia, and Latin America; the prison is a reflection of the Third World within the United States.

Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix explained in an interview with researcher Reese Erlich, We could offer
[competitive] prison inmate labor in Oregon.2 To understand the conditions that have allowed such an exploitative

Before the
abolition of slavery there was no real prison system in the United States . Punishment for
industry to develop, we have to look at the origin of the United States prison system itself.

crime consisted of physical torture, referred to as corporal or capital punishment. While the model prison in the
United States was built in Auburn, New York in 1817, it wasnt until the end of the Civil War, with the official
abolition of slavery, that the prison system took hold. In 1865, the 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery for
all people except those convicted of a crime and opened the door for mass criminalization. Prisons were built in the
South as part of the backlash to Black Reconstruction and as a mechanism to re-enslave Black workers. In the late
19th-century South, an extensive prison system was developed in the interest of maintaining the racial and
economic relationship of slavery. Louisianas famous Angola Prison illustrates this history best. In 1880, this 8000acre family plantation was purchased by the state of Louisiana and converted into a prison. Slave quarters became
cell units. Now expanded to 18,000 acres, the Angola plantation is tilled by prisoners working the landa chilling
picture of modern day chattel slavery. Black Codes and Convict Leasing When slavery was legally abolished, a new
set of laws called the Black Codes emerged to criminalize legal activity for African Americans. Through the
enforcement of these laws, acts such as standing in one area of town or walking at night, for example, became the
criminal acts of loitering or breaking curfew, for which African Americans were imprisoned. As a result of Black

A
system of convict leasing was developed to allow white slave plantation owners in
the South to literally purchase prisoners to live on their property and work under
their control. Through this system, bidders paid an average $25,000 a year to the
state, in exchange for control over the lives of all of the prisoners . The system provided
Codes, the percentage of African Americans in prison grew exponentially, surpassing whites for the first time.3

revenue for the state and profits for plantation owners. In 1878, Georgia leased out 1,239 prisoners, and all but 115
were African American.4 Much like the system of slavery from which it emerged, convict leasing was a violent and
abusive system. The death rate of prisoners leased to railroad companies between 1877 and 1879 was 16 percent
in Mississippi, 25 percent in Arkansas, and 45 percent in South Carolina.5 The stories of violence and torture
eventually led to massive reform and abolition movements involving alliances between prisoner organizations, labor

As the southern
states began to phase out convict leasing, prisoners were increasingly made to work
unions, and community groups. By the 1930s, every state had abolished convict leasing.6

in the most brutal form of forced labor, the chain gang . The chain gangs originated as a part of
a massive road development project in the 1890s. Georgia was the first state to begin using chain gangs to work
male felony convicts outside of the prison walls. Chains were wrapped around the ankles of prisoners, shackling five
together while they worked, ate, and slept. Following Georgias example, the use of chain gangs spread rapidly

For over 30 years, African-American prisoners (and some white

prisoners) in the chain gangs were worked at gunpoint under whips and chains in a
throughout the South.7

public spectacle of chattel slavery and torture. Eventually, the brutality and violence associated with chain gang
labor in the United States gained worldwide attention. The chain gang was abolished in every state by the l950s,

Just a few
decades later, we are witnessing the return of all of these systems of prison labor
exploitation. Private corporations are able to lease factories in prisons , as well as lease
almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War.8 Prison Labor Exploitation in the 21st Century

prisoners out to their factories. Private corporations are running prisons-for-profit. Government-run prison factories
operate as multibillion dollar industries in every state, and throughout the federal prison system. In the most
punitive and racist prison systems, we are even witnessing the return of the chain gang. Prisoner resistance and
community organizing has been able to defeat some of these initiatives, but in Arizona, Maricopa County continues

Shifts in the United

States economy and growing crises of underemployment and poverty in
communities of color have created the conditions for the current wave of
mass incarceration and the boom in prison labor exploitation. In the Bayview
to operate the first womens chain gang in the history of the United States.9

Hunters Point neighborhood of San Francisco, a historically Black community with an estimated 50 percent
unemployment rate, the community is facing criminalization, incarceration and mass displacement as a result of
gentrification. San Francisco, along with eight other counties in California, is implementing gang injunctions
curfews, anti-loitering, and anti-association laws that function very similar to Black Codes for Black, Latino, and
Asian youthusing the pretext of gang prevention to track young men into the prison system to become prison
labor, while preparing the community for redevelopment and gentrification. People Organized to Win Employment
Rights (POWER) is building power among Bayview residents and fighting for economic development that addresses
the interests of the Black community, which will create alternatives to prison labor exploitation.10 Struggles like this
are being waged all across the country and provide an opening to link the demands for worker rights, community

The fight against the exploitation of prison labor is at once a

fight against racial profiling and mass incarceration, and also for genuine economic
development in Black, Latino, Asian, and Pacific Islander communities. The labor
rights, and prisoner rights.

movement in the United States has a responsibility to support prisoner unions such as the Missouri Prison Labor
Union (MPLU), which is fighting for higher wages and collective bargaining, and to challenge labor unions who
dismiss prisoners as stealing jobs from the good law-abiding workers on the outside. As Sidney Williams of the
MLPU states, In this struggle we seek to regain our human dignity. That is the demand of the slavery abolition
movement of the 21st century.

--xt: solvency
The USFG has the jurisdiction to increase prison wages- the
counterplan decreases recidivism which drives racism
Decker 13 (Charles Decker. Political Science graduate from Yale and contributor
to the peer reviewed Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies. October 2013.
http://isps.yale.edu/team/charles-decker#.VaQm4_lViko)//EMerz
These challenges alone clearly make the case for expanded work opportunities in prison. Of course, prison labor is

federal inmates earn 12 cents to 40 cents

per hour for jobs serving the prison , and 23 cents to $1.15 per hour in Federal Prison
Industries factories. Prisoners are increasingly working for private companies as well. A significant cut of
even these token wages goes to criminal justice system fees. Offenders thus have little hope of
saving money while in prison, and this lack of money combined with
fragile post-release support systems is an explosive formula for recidivism
and reincarceration. As such, the time has come to institute a living wage for prison
labor. This wage need not be at the same level in prison as it would be outside. But
prison wages must be high enough to cover the fees imposed by the criminal justice
system while allowing offenders to reserve enough money to have a fair start upon release.
Such a policy could make a big difference in reducing recidivism and
bringing down the incarceration rate even further. While much prison policy is
determined at the state level, the Federal Government does have power over prison labor
policy, even for non-federal inmates. In 1979, Congress created the Prison Industries Enhancement
alive and well. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Certification Program (PIECP). Under PIECP, goods made by prisoners are banned from interstate transport unless
inmates are paid prevailing wages, or wages comparable to those in the private sector. These criteria, however,

PIECP has laid the groundwork for government regulation of

prison laborwhat is needed now is better enforcement. Two major objections to these
are routinely circumvented.

proposals may arise. The first is concrete: free workers will cry foul over competition from prison labor. The second
is philosophical: nobody is forced to work, but prison labor is at its heart coercive. Both concerns are accurate and
complex, but the answer to each stems from the same fact: prison labor is not going anywhere. It has existed for as
long as the American criminal justice system, and ignoring its problems serves the interests of no worker, free or
incarcerated. Bringing these realities out into the open is the first step toward bringing the issue of prison labor into
the movement to reform the carceral state.

Racial Profiling CP

**1nc
Text: The states of the United States should prohibit racial
profiling.
States need to have comprehensive racial profiling laws
solves the aff
Eversley 14 writer for USA Today Melanie Eversley, 9/26/2014, USA Today,
NAACP finds many states lack laws barring profiling,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/naacp-racial-profililngreport/16229867/, 7/12/2015, \\BD
Just after a heated summer that included a handful of fatalities at the hands of police that raised questions of

the NAACP has released a report that says many states do not have laws that
explicitly prohibit racial profiling. The civil rights organization on Thursday released the 68-page report,
racism,

Born Suspect: Stop and Frisk and the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America. The group launched the
study after the Feb. 26, 2012, death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George
Zimmerman, said lead author Niaz Kasravi, the NAACP's director of criminal justice. Kasravi told USA TODAY that
what stood out most for her was that the findings were similar to another study she did after the 2001 terror attacks
while working for Amnesty International. Back then, the focus was on alleged racial profiling against Muslims.
"Not

much has changed. The numbers are pretty stagnan t," Kasravi said. She said
"probably a couple of states" passed laws prohibiting racial profiling -- stopping and
questioning people based on racial stereotypes -- over the past decade. She said
the NAACP has a litmus test -- things such as data collection and enhanced police
training -- to measure the effectiveness of racial profiling laws. " It's sad that not
one state has all those components." The report found that: 20 state racial profiling
laws are not clear and specific in prohibiting racial profiling. 33 states do not require
mandatory data on stops and searches. 33 states do not require establishment of
racial profiling commissions to review complaints. The release of the report comes as tension
still brews in Ferguson, Mo., where 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson on
Aug. 9, and in New York City, where Eric Garner died in a chokehold by police on July 17. On Thursday, national
activists and family members of Brown and Garner were in Washington to ask the Justice Department to investigate

NAACP President Cornel Brooks, among those at a press conference,

said African American communities are "in the midst of a pandemic of police
misconduct." Benjamin Crump, the lawyer for the Brown family, said of predominantly black neighborhoods,
"Probable cause happens in our community with no evidence at all ." Alleged racial
the two deaths.

profiling and police misconduct are the main reasons members and leaders of NAACP chapters contact the
organization's Baltimore headquarters, Kasravi said.

--xt Solvency
The counterplan is key not one state has adequate racial
profiling laws
Clark 14 writer for MSNBC Meredith Clark, 9/25/2014, MSNBC, Racial profiling
report finds not one state with acceptable protections,
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/racial-profiling-report-finds-not-one-state-acceptableprotections, 7/12/2015, \\BD
Racial profiling is still a major part of life for communities of color across the
country, and a new report has found that legal protections from such profiling vary
wildly from state to state. The NAACP report came the same day the families of three black men killed by
police officers in recent months called for justice for their loved ones. After several noteworthy killings of black
men by white police officers, the NAACP on Thursday released Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses and the
Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America, which looked at racial profile laws in all 50 states. It also
examined how activists and civil liberties advocates in New York City successfully fought the NYPDs discriminatory
stop and frisk police search policy, which disproportionately targeted black and Hispanic residents. In

2014
there is not one state that has a statute that can stand up against this pandemic
of police misconduct, NAACP President Cornell Brooks said of the report. According the NAACPs review, 20
states dont have a ban on racial profiling, and only 17 states with anti-profiling
laws make violations a crime. The kind of data collected by law enforcement varies
from state to state, the report found, making it difficult to compare communities
and strategies effectively. Connecticut and Rhode Island were both singled out for having the most
protections for their citizens against racial profiling, but neither state met every one of the NAACPs criteria for
constitutional safeguards. And Kentucky, which basically lacks all of the necessary components for a good law,
landed at the bottom of the list.

at: Fed Profiling

The federal government is already banning racial profiling its
just a question of states and localities
Horwitz 14 writer for The Washington Post Sari Horwitz, 12/8/2014, The
Washington Post, Justice Dept. announces new rules to curb racial profiling by
federal law enforcement, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/justice-dept-to-announce-new-rules-to-curb-racial-profiling-by-federal-lawenforcement/2014/12/07/e00eca18-7e79-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html,
7/12/2015, \\BD
The Obama administration on Monday formally announced long-awaited curbs on
racial profiling by federal law enforcement, but the new rules will not cover local
police departments, which have come under criticism in recent months over
allegations that their officers profile suspects. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Justice
Department rules for racial profiling to prevent FBI agents from considering gender, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation and gender identity, in addition to race and ethnicity, when opening cases. The department also is

Holders revised policy covers

state and local law enforcement officers while they participate in federal law
enforcement task forces. But it is considered only guidance for police officers in
state and local departments. The profiling rules come at a time of racial tension around the country after
banning racial profiling from national security cases for the first time.

the recent deaths of three African Americans at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., New York and Cleveland, and
the absence of criminal charges against the white police officers who were involved. As attorney general, I have
repeatedly made clear that profiling by law enforcement is not only wrong, it is profoundly misguided and
ineffective, Holder said. Particularly

in light of certain recent incidents weve seen at the

local level, and the widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process,
its imperative that we take every possible action to institute strong and sound
policing practices.

Federal action is irrelevant state and local actions are key

Natarajan 14 clinical professor and director of the Civil Rights Clinic at The
University of Texas School of Law Ranjana Natarajan, 12/15/2014, The Washington
Post, Racial profiling has destroyed public trust in police. Cops are exploiting our
weak laws against it.,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/15/racial-profiling-hasdestroyed-public-trust-in-police-cops-are-exploiting-our-weak-laws-against-it/,
7/12/2015, \\BD
The #BlackLivesMatter movement has sparked nationwide protests and has raised awareness worldwide about the
unequal treatment of black people by police in the United States. Listening to the voices from the movement

its clear
that two issues need to be addressed: racial profiling and police use of excessive
force. Both run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, but remain common practices in law
enforcement, too often with tragic results . In Garners case, for example, police targeted him for
and learning from the death of Eric Garner and the series of other deaths of unarmed black men

the petty crime of selling loose cigarettes the types of crimes black people are targeted for at higher rates and

Whatever else we have

learned from the recent tragedies of police violence, it is clear that we need
comprehensive federal, state and local policies that outlaw racial profiling and
rein in police excessive force. Racial profiling as well as profiling based on religion, ethnicity and
then attempted to arrest him with a chokehold, banned by the department.

national origin continues to plague our nation despite the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the

law. In a 2011 report, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights found evidence of widespread racial profiling,
showing that African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched by police,
even though theyre less likely to be found possessing contraband or committing a criminal act. In Illinois, for
example, black and Hispanic drivers were twice as likely to be searched after a traffic stop compared to white
drivers, but white drivers were twice as likely to have contraband. The NYPDs controversial stop-and-frisk program
shows similar evidence of racial profiling, with police targeting blacks and Latinos about 85 percent of the time. In

excessive force by police persists

despite the Constitutions prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures . In
nearly nine out of 10 searches, police find nothing. Likewise,

lawsuits and investigations, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that a number of major police
departments have engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force. The Cleveland Police Department was most
recently found to be an offender, but it follows a long line of other wayward law enforcement agencies: Seattle, New
Orleans, Portland, Newark and Albuquerque among them. Clearly, cases like Eric Garners are not isolated police
use of excessive force is a systemic, national problem. The DOJ has recommended revising and clarifying local
policies regarding appropriate uses of force, improving officer training and supervision, and implementing rigorous

recommendations are not enough.

Conquering this systemic issue demands a national mandate. Profiling undermines
public safety and strains police-community trust. When law enforcement officers
target residents based on race, religion or national origin rather than behavior,
crime-fighting is less effective and community distrust of police grows . A study of the
internal accountability systems, among other things. But

Los Angeles Police Department showed that minority communities that had been unfairly targeted in the past

To root out this ineffective tactic

that undermines public confidence, we need stronger policies against racial profiling
at all levels from local to federal as well as more effective training and
oversight of police officers, and systems of accountability. Twenty states have no
laws prohibiting racial profiling by law enforcement, according to an NAACP report
released in September. Among states that do, the policies vary widely in implementation and effectiveness.
Only 17 of those states require data collection on all police stops and searches, and
only 15 require analysis and publication of other racial profiling data. Limited and
continue to experience greater mistrust and fear of police officers.

inconsistent data collection makes it impossible to devise effective remedies for racial profiling.

RelationsAsia

**1nc
Counterplan: The United States federal government should substantially
increase its engagement with ASEAN.
Solves the advantage
Task Force on Multilateral Engagement in U.S.-East Asia Relations 11,
(U.S.East Asia Relations: A Strategy for Multilateral Engagement)
ASEAN can serve as a foundation. ASEANs role in building a more integrated
regional society based on shared norms and values should be fully recognized and
supported. Asia currently faces tensions between two competing trends: Asia as a
community of norms and values, and Asia as a region shaped by power relations ,
given the presence of the United States and China. Although ASEAN is not considered an emerging power, the
group of ten medium and smaller-sized countries has promoted modes of cooperation through its own example of
developing a community. In the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and other efforts and practices in regional

ASEANs role in engaging the emerging powers of Asia deserves recognition

and support. Deeper ASEAN engagement with the United States can reinforce
ASEANs role in promoting values and building norms. This may be a more
productive focus for U.S.ASEAN relations, rather than simply seeking to use U.S.
ASEAN ties as a means of balancing rising regional actors such as China. 6. Recognize that integration on
diplomacy,

different economic and security issues will continue at different speeds in the region. Each side has a different tenor
that should be noted. With economic ties, many in Asia seek to become closer to China, though there is some
wariness over issues such as cheap goods. On security ties, however, there are questions about China and its future
intentions. Many recognize the need for a future place to integrate. With the East Asian Summit, some are leaning
toward one place to integrate, while others are talking about network diplomacy. Integration on different issues will

A new U.S.
diplomacy with ASEAN is needed. There is a need and an opportunity for the United
States to engage with ASEAN more closely as a hub for a wider Asia. Building on the
newly established U.S.ASEAN Summit and the appointment of Ambassador David
Carden as the first U.S. resident representative to ASEAN in March 2011, the United
States should continue to deepen its understanding of ASEAN and seek out likeminded countries in the grouping. This should not be limited to its alliesthe
Philippines and Thailandbut also should include ties with Indonesia, Singapore,
Vietnam, and Malaysia and cross-border projects such as the Greater Mekong
Subregion. In this context, challenges in relations with Myanmar have to be addressed.
continue at separate speeds, and this may signal a need for more network diplomacy. 7.

RelationsEU

**Death Penalty 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should abolish the
death penalty.
The CP solves relations with the EUthe EU has been putting
restrictions on the US
Ford 14Matt is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he covers law and the courts.
(Can Europe End the Death Penalty in America? An EU export ban on lethal-injection drugs
is making U.S. executions more difficult to perform. February 18, 2014
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/can-europe-end-the-death-penaltyin-america/283790/)//JLee

Why did Ohio, which has used lethal injection since it resumed executions in 1999, suddenly try an unproven
chemical mixture on McGuire? The answer lies in a growing shortage of standard
lethal-injection drugs brought about primarily by a 2011 export ban by the European Union , the
effects of which are starting to be felt in death-row chambers across America. The ban severed U.S. prisons from the last large-scale
manufacturers of sodium thiopental, a key anesthetic in lethal injections. In recent years, some smaller drugmakers elsewhere in the
world have also declined to sell sodium thiopental and other lethal-injection drugs to U.S. states, citing activist pressure, the fear of
lawsuits, and their ethical obligations. The

EU embargo has slowed down, but not stopped

executions, Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C, told me. It has
made the states seem somewhat desperate and not in control, putting the death penalty in a negative light, with an uncertain

Lethal injection is by far the predominant method of execution in the United

States. Before the drug shortage, virtually every lethal-injection protocol used the same three-drug method. A first drug, sodium
future.

thiopental, anesthetized the prisoner. Then a second drug, pancuronium bromide, paralyzed the inmate and halted his or her
breathing. Finally, an injection of potassium chloride stopped the heart. Jay Chapman, an Oklahoma medical examiner with little
pharmacology experience, first proposed the three-drug protocol in 1977. Asked about his qualifications by a New York Times
reporter 30 years later, Chapman described himself as an expert in matters after death but not in getting people that way. Texas
became the first state to use lethal injection when it executed Charles Brooks, Jr. on December 7, 1982. Since then, U.S. states have
executed over 1,000 death-row inmates by lethal injection. By the time the three-drug cocktail's constitutionality came before the
U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in Baze v. Rees, lethal injection had become the preferred method of execution for 36 states and the
federal government. Thirty of those states used Chapmans method. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the three-drug protocol in a 7-2

The European Union, for its part, makes no secret of its death-penalty stance .
EU guidelines call for its universal abolition and declare that doing so would
[contribute] to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive
development of human rights. EU diplomats and leaders frequently petition U.S.
governors and state parole boards to halt forthcoming executions . Sometimes, the
supranational organization even works in more subtle ways: EU agencies contributed over $4.8 million in
donations to U.S. anti-death-penalty organizations between 2009 and 2013. Kennedy wrote that world
opinion, while not controlling our outcome, does provide ... confirmation for our own conclusions. The EUs influence
extends to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices have drawn upon the organization's amicus curiae briefs from
decision.

time to time in death penalty cases. Justice John Paul Stevens majority opinion in 2002s Atkins v. Virginia cited the EUs brief on
worldwide opposition to executing the mentally disabled as a factor in the Court's decision to forbid the practice in the United
States. During oral arguments for Roper v. Simmons in 2005, Justice Anthony Kennedy pondered whether European views should be

The
EU had already told the Court in an amicus brief that imposing the death penalty on
persons who were minors at the time of the crime violates widely accepted human
rights norms and the minimum standards of human rights set forth by the United Nations. Writing for the
considered when assessing the unusual aspect of the Eighth Amendments prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment.

Courts majority in Roper, Kennedy agreed with the EUs assessment and wrote that world opinion, while not controlling our
outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions. Not all of the justices were as appreciative.
Though the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant to the Courts decision today, said Justice Antonin Scalia in his
Roper dissent, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage. I think the constant
reminder that our closest allies are opposed on fundamental human-rights grounds to the death penalty goes a long way in our
gradual re-evaluation of this issue, Dieter told me. And that moral and ethical case, enforced by export bans on the materials

necessary to perform lethal injections, is changing how America executes the men and women it sentences to death. Of the three
drugs used in standard lethal injections, potassium chloride and pancuronium bromide are widely available. But sodium thiopental
has been superseded by newer anesthetics. Few U.S. hospitals, if any, still use it, and even fewer manufacturers produce it
worldwide. Most importantly, sodium thiopental only has a shelf life of about four years, making stockpiling the drug difficult given
the lengthy and arduous appeals process for death-penalty cases. As a result of this vulnerable supply line, sodium thiopental has
become a pressure point for activists in the U.S. and Europe.

Initially, individual European countries moved

to cut off supply of the drug. British officials at first refused to restrict it, arguing that the anesthetic had legitimate
medical uses, until activists provided data showing that Europes customers for the drug
included U.S. prisons. Business Secretary Vince Cable then reversed course and imposed an export ban in November
2010, citing Britains longstanding support of the death penaltys worldwide abolition.
Hospira, the last U.S. company to market sodium thiopental, stopped production of the drug in January 2011 under intense pressure

Italy, where their pharmaceutical plant is located. As sources began to dry up, some states
India, which
sold each state sodium thiopental before halting U.S. sales in April 2011 . In Arkansas,
from authorities in

banded together to find new suppliers. South Dakota and Nebraska approached Kayem Pharmaceuticals in

corrections officials obtained sodium thiopental from British distributors and then shared it for free with Mississippi, Oklahoma, and
Tennessee. But the states soon ran afoul of federal regulators for violating trade restrictions. The Drug Enforcement Agency seized
Georgias supply of sodium thiopental in 2011 after records suggested that state officials might have broken the law by purchasing
and importing the drug from Dream Pharma, a British distributor operating out of the back of a driving school in London. Kentucky
handed over its sodium thiopental to the DEA that same year. Georgia purchased sodium thiopental from Dream Pharma, a British
distributor operating out of the back of a driving school in London. By June 2011, the sodium thiopental supply had run so low that
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke asked his German counterpart, Economics Minister Philipp Rsler, for assistance in
alleviating the shortage. I noted the request and declined, Rsler publicly declared, citing his Catholic faith, and then announced
plans to forbid German pharmaceutical companies from selling sodium thiopental to the United States. Around the same time, in
neighboring Denmark, Lundbeck, the sole pharmaceutical company licensed to manufacture pentobarbital in the United States,

Ludford, a British
lead the fight for a Europewide export ban. "I am proud to have helped lead the campaign to stop EU-produced
medicines being hijacked for such appalling uses , in line with the UK and EU commitment to abolish the
death penalty around the world," she told me in a statement. "I am determined to continue ensuring that
Europe is not complicit in the deaths of American citizens." Then, in December 2011, the hammer
announced it would stop selling the medicine, another commonly used execution drug, to U.S. prisons. Sarah
member of the European Parliament and vice chair of its delegation to the U.S., helped

fell. The European Commission, the EU's executive body, expanded its Regulation on Products used for Capital Punishment and
Torture to include products which could be used for the execution of human beings by means of lethal injection, including short
and intermediate acting barbiturate anaesthetic agents like pentobarbital and sodium thiopental, among others. The U.S.
government's current position on the export ban or on state efforts to circumvent is unclear. Federal agencies and departments
contacted on the matter either did not respond to requests for comment or deferred to the Food and Drug Administration, the
federal agency charged with regulating the manufacture, importation, and sale of pharmaceutical drugs in the U.S. Some have
raised concerns about the ways in which the FDA regulates imports of drugs used in lethal injections. A group of inmates recently
mounted a successful legal challenge to the FDA's refusal to block sodium thiopental imports to Arizona, California, and Tennessee,
arguing that the agency had improperly allowed drugs from unregistered distributors into the United States. In his March 2012
ruling, the federal judge Richard Leon agreed, and castigated FDA regulators for acting "arbitrarily and capriciously" and abusing

the EU
export ban and whether the agency had taken steps to alleviate shortages of lethalinjection drugs, an FDA spokesman replied with a statement: "The FDA does not approve drugs for use in lethal injection
their discretion by not blocking unregulated sodium thiopental imports themselves. When asked for its position on

settings. Our work on drug shortages focuses on ensuring the continued availability of medically necessary drugs. We cannot
comment on this issue further."

--xt: solvency
CP solvesonly way to get be a part of the EU is to abolish the Death
Penalty
Stone 15Jon is a reporter for independent.co.uk mainly covering politics. He has previously worked for
PoliticsHome, BuzzFeed, and others. (America is running out of lethal injection drugs because of a European
embargo to end the death penalty March 13, 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-isrunning-out-of-lethal-injection-drugs-because-of-a-european-embargo-to-end-the-death-penalty10106933.html)//JLee

Prison authorities in Texas are one lethal injection away from running out of
executioners drugs, the states justice department has confirmed. The near-exhaustion of supplies in Texas comes

a shortage of lethal injection drugs across the United States, prompted by

European efforts to keep the poisons out of American hands. In recent years European
countries have imposed export controls on a range of execution drugs in a bid to
force American states to stop killing prisoners. Two of the drugs, pentobarbital and sodium
amid

thiopental, are used in the vast majority of executions in the United States, where the death penalty is still

The UK unilaterally restricted the export of death penalty

drugs to the United States in 2010 under the direction of the Business Secretary
Vince Cable. Abolishing the death penalty across the world is a European Union
foreign policy objective The European Union followed suit at the end of 2011 , putting
commonplace for serious crimes.

the poisons on a list of controlled exports that could be used as part of capital punishment, torture or other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The

decision today contributes to the wider EU

efforts to abolish the death penalty worldwide, Catherine Ashton, the vice president of the
Commission at the time, said. While the ban appears to have had an effect, a spokesperson Texass justice
department told the Independent that the state was looking at alternative drugs to use in its executions. The Texas
Department of Criminal Justice is actively exploring all options at this point including the continued use of
pentobarbital or an alternate drug or drugs to use in lethal injections, he explained. Other states have taken more
drastic measures to circumvent the controls. On Tuesday this week Utahs state legislature approved proposals to
carry out executions by firing square in the event of a drug shortage. State-level representatives in Oklahoma are
even considering a proposal to kill prisoners in gas chambers if supplies of anaesthetics run out.

Some states

have had to delay executions because of shortages. Authorities in Ohio delayed at least one
killing after an attempt to use an alternative drug was branded a failed, agonising experiment because of its slow

32 US states still practice the death penalty, with the

practice abolished in only 18. Partly owing to its size and population , Texas carries out far
more executions than any other state. Abolition of the death penalty is mandatory for
countries wanting to join the European Union, and the European Commission describes
the practices worldwide abolition as "a key objective for the Unions human rights
policy".
and distressing effect on its target.

**LNG CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase
its liquefied natural gas exports.
CP solvescreates US-EU relations and prevents Russia Rise
Goldwyn 14David L. is a nonresident senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate
Initiative at Brookings and president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, LLC, an international
energy advisory consultancy. He served as the U.S. State Departments special envoy and
coordinator for international energy affairs from 2009 to 2011, reporting directly to Secretary
of State Hillary (Refreshing European Energy Security Policy: How the U.S. Can Help March
18, 2014 http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2014/03/18-european-energy-securitypolicy-goldwyn)//JLee

The U.S. can help Central and Eastern Europe and Ukraine by refreshing its European
energy security policy. The current crisis validates Americas long-term policy goal of diversifying Europes energy
supply to diminish Russias ability to use energy as a coercive tool against its neighbors. While much progress has been made, with

Russia still dominates Central and Eastern European (CEE) natural gas
supply, and recent events call for refocusing our efforts. Stiffening the EUs spine to create a truly
competitive internal energy market, promoting the efforts of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) on internal market reform in CEE countries , supporting indigenous gas
bipartisan support,

production and taking steps to building a reliable energy bridge to Europe through U.S. exports should be the cornerstones of U.S.
policy. While no panacea, respected U.S. energy experts have been too quick to dismiss a linkage between Europe (and Ukraines)

a clear signal that liquefied

natural gas (LNG) exports to European allies are deemed to be in the national
interest[1] would indeed have an immediate impact on Russias market power and
help accelerate the build out of gas transportation infrastructure in Europe . The U.S. has
energy insecurity and the utility of expediting U.S. hydrocarbon exports. Indeed,

already caused Russia to renegotiate current gas contracts and discount renewed contacts due to the displacement of LNG flows

U.S. LNG exports will be available to Europe

will send a message to Russia that within a few years , despite its current ability to pressure Ukraine
once meant for our markets. An immediate signal that future

and other nations once part of the USSR, this will no longer be possible. Expectations of future supply will impact price expectations
and infrastructure investment decisions made today. Ukraines future energy security lies in greater reverse flows of gas from

To the extent that the firm promise of U.S. LNG

exports in the 2017-2022 period sustain lower LNG prices and help finance new
interconnections from LNG import terminals on the continent, Ukraine will benefit indirectly as
well. Success in Ensuring European Energy Security Since 2009 U.S. policy has promoted redundant
infrastructure as a cornerstone of energy security policy since the 1990s . Long gestating
Europe and well managed gas storage in Ukraine.

projects like the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline and the Southern Corridor were fundamental goals. Enhancing pipeline
interconnections to move gas freely across the continent, internal pricing and efficiency reform and development of clean energy
alternatives were the additional core elements. Much progress has been made over two decades. BTC is
operational, Azeri gas flows to Turkey and there will be a Southern Gas Corridor (although not as ambitious as the Nabucco project),
which will bring gas to Turkey, Italy, Greece and Albania. Norway is providing competitively priced gas to the continent. The
European Unions Third Energy Package[2] has eliminated destination clauses (allowing free sale of gas) and should advance internal
reforms. EU

competition policy should restrict Russias ability to monopolize midstream

and downstream energy infrastructure as well as gas supply , including barring Russia from
completing the South Stream pipeline intended to allow Russias gas flows to bypass Ukraine. The U.S. shale gas
boom, as noted above, has had the greatest impact on the competitiveness of the
European gas market by creating a glut of LNG supply that has opened a spot market and driven down long-term
contract prices.

Exports key to prevent Russia Expansion in the Crimea

Emmott 14Robin is a senior correspondent for Reuters in Brussels (Ukraine crisis gives
new impetus to EU-U.S. trade talks, U.S. says March 22, 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/22/ukraine-crisis-usa-tradeidUSL6N0MJ08520140322)//JLee

Russia's annexation of Crimea underlines the need for the United

States and the European Union to substantially deepen their economic ties, Washington's
top trade official said on Saturday, opening the door to U.S. exports of natural gas to Europe .
BRUSSELS, March 22 (Reuters) -

Days before U.S. President Barack Obama and EU officials hold a summit in Brussels, U.S. Trade Representative
Michael Froman said the rationale "could

never be stronger" for a U.S.-EU free-trade pact,

despite growing public hostility to it. "Right now as we look around the world, there is a
powerful reason for Europe and the United States to come together to
demonstrate that they can take their relationship to a new leve l," Froman told
reporters. "Recent developments just underscore the importance of the transatlantic relationship. "From both a
strategic and economic perspective, the rationale for the T-TIP could never be stronger," he said, referring to the
proposed accord's official name, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Brussels and Washington say

a trade pact encompassing almost half the world's economy could generate $100
billion in additional economic output a year on both sides of the Atlantic , as well as
creating a market of 800 million consumers. But since talks were launched eight months ago, reports of U.S. spying
in Europe and accusations that an accord would pander to big companies have combined to erode public support.

Moscow's seizure of the Crimea region from Ukraine and Europe's reliance
on Russian energy, have focused minds across Europe about the need for stronger
ties with the United States. EU leaders dedicated a summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday to
rethinking relations with Moscow and accelerating their quest to reduce the bloc's reliance
on Russian oil and gas, an area where the United States can play a role. Froman laid out how
European companies could export U.S. liquefied natural gas in tankers to Europe via
the proposed trade accord, or possibly even before then, as France, Germany and
Britain would like. Under U.S. rules, the department of energy must issue licenses to exporting companies,
but license approval becomes automatic under a free-trade agreement, or FTA. "Clearly, when the T-TIP is done,
assuming it is done, there will be an FTA relationship with the European Union," he said. TENSIONS OVER TARIFFS
Asia is for now a more lucrative export market for U.S. liquefied natural gas, but Froman said it was also up to
European companies to decide where gas goes and that exports did not depend on a transatlantic trade deal. "Even
right now there have been four or five licenses approved for export to non-FTA countries. There are several
European companies who are the contractors," he said, naming France's Total and GDF Suez. "Where that gas goes
is up to them. Conceivably European governments have an interest in them bringing that gas to Europe," Froman

The European Union's top two officials, Herman Van Rompuy and Jose Manuel
Barroso, are expected to press Obama on the issue of energy on Wednesday when they
said.

meet in Brussels. Beyond Ukraine, other difficult issues include how to open up to each other's markets, removing
barriers to business and customs duties that cost companies billions of dollars each year, particularly automakers
such as Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen. Washington and Brussels are at odds over an initial exchange of

"We
reaffirm that the goal of negotiations should be elimination of all tariffs. We would
welcome Europe reaffirming that goal," Froman said.
offers to open up markets and cut tariffs, with both sides saying the other has not been ambitious enough.

Russia Expansionism leads to nuclear war

Blank 10 Stephen Blank is a US Army War College and Strategic Studies Institute Russia Expert. (Beyond the Reset
Policy: Current Dilemmas of US-Russia Relations, Survival, October, 2010)

Shvaichenko went beyond the previous line that nuclear weapons may
be used to defend Russias vital interests in a first-strike mode if the vital
interests of the country are at risk or deemed to be at risk , as stated in the 2000
Here

military doctrine. 103 That posture translated into a peacetime strategy of using Russias nuclear forces as a deterrent against any
aggression launched against either Russia or its CIS neighbors or against Russia if it made war upon those states, as in Georgias
case in 2008. 104 In other words, the nuclear warnings strategic political purpose is to demarcate a theater of both military and
peacetime operations wherein Russia would have relative if not full freedom of action to operate as it saw fit, free from foreign
interference. In political terms it not only represents a no go sign for potential enemies, it also is an attempt to intimidate NATO
allies, indicating that they will be targets of Russian nuclear strikes if they try to invoke Article V of the Washington Treaty should
Russia move on the Baltic States. Given Russias emphasis on securing a sphere of influence in the CIS, the centrality of nuclear
weapons in assuring that objective works to preclude significant reductions in that forces capability or number. Consequently in

nuclear weapons for Russia. They serve to

demarcate its sphere of influence, by setting up a no-go zone for foreign
military entities, for as we said the Russian elite almost unanimously
believes that without such weapons the whole of the CIS would be open to
NATO intervention in a crisis. Thus if Russia is to have a sphere of influence
there it must extend its deterrence umbrella throughout it to make its
claim credible and with that its claim to great or even superpower status .
Neither is Russias professed readiness to use nuclear weapons confined to land-based systems. Burtsevs
remarks above confirm that. This is clearly something that is clearly unacceptable as a threat to European security. Certainly we
cannot assume this to be mere rhetoric, for as Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has long since
stated regarding Russian threats in the Baltic, according to the information to which we have access, there are
already tactical nuclear weapons in the Kaliningrad area. They are located
both at and in the vicinity of units belonging to the Russia fleet. This
means that Russia effectively violated the Bush-Yeltsin Presidential Nuclear
Initiatives of 199192 barring TNW from naval vessels. Key officials confirmed this
interpretation, conceding limited nuclear war as Russias officially
acknowledged strategy against many different kinds of contingencies . 107 In
these remarks we also see a hidden or at least unnoticed mission of

September 2008, at a roundtable on nuclear deterrence, Solovtsov noted that Russia was giving explicit consideration to the
concept of special actions or deterring actions of the RVSN aimed at the prevention of escalation of a non-nuclear military conflict
of high intensity against Russia. Solovtsov further stated that, These actions may be taken with a view to convincingly
demonstrating to the aggressor [the] high combat potential of Rusian nuclear missile weapons, [the] determination of the militarypolitical leadership of Russia to apply them in order to make the aggressor stop combat actions . . . In view of its unique properties,
the striking power of the Strategic Missile Forces is most efficient and convincing in the deescalation actions. 108 This strategy also
openly reflects Moscows bizarre, unsettling, and unprecedented belief that Russia can control escalation and nuclear war by
initiating it, despite forty years of Soviet argument that no such control was feasible. Meanwhile current procurements display a
reliance on new, mobile, survivable, and allegedly indefensible nuclear weapons even as numbers fall. For example, Russia seeks to
keep its mobile missile systems of the nuclear forces invisible to foreign reconnaissance systems while also developing means to
suppress such reconnaissance and surveillance systems. 109 Accordingly, as Russian officials regularly proclaim, nuclear
procurements are intended to develop missiles against which America has no defense, e.g. mobile missiles, MIRVs, and fusion, low-

nuclear weapons are warfighting

weapons. Moscows threats from October 2009 not only follow previous doctrine, they expand on
it to openly admit that limited nuclear war is its option or hole card. If Russia
should decide to invade or seize one or more Baltic states, then that
would mean it is prepared to wage nuclear war against NATO and the U.S.
to hold onto that acquisition although it would prefer not to or thinks it
could get away with it without having to do so. The idea behind such a limited nuclear war is
yield nuclear weapons that can also be used on the battlefield. Thus

that Russia would seize control of the intrawar esclation process by detonating a first strike even in a preventive or preemtpive
mode and this would supposedly force NATO (or China) to negotiate a political solution that allows it to hold onto at least some of its
gains. Apart from the immensity of Moscows gamble that NATO or China will not have the stomach to retaliate for nuclar strikes,
which for Moscow will be carried out to inflict a preset amount of damage that it believes will signal its limited intent,

Moscow is essentialy engaging in a game of nuclear chicken or blackmail. In fact the real
risk here is that the West will not acquiesce but rather that it will retaliate or even
escalate, further adding to the inherent unpredictability of any
conceivable nuclear war scenario.

--xt: Solvency
EU needs the US to combat energy insecurityRussia is expanding and the
only place they can get natural gas without Russia blocking it
Mix 15Derek E. Mix is an analyst in European Affairs for the Congressional
Research Service (The United States and Europe: Current Issues February 3, 2015
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22163.pdf)//JLee
Tensions between the EU and Russia have also refocused attention on the issue of
European energy security. Europe is a major importer of natural gas, and over the past
decade energy security has become a major European concern in the context of rising global energy demand. The
EU as a whole is dependent on Russia for about one-third of its gas imports and one-quarter of its
total gas and oil supplies. These percentages are expected to grow substantially over the next 20 years. For some

dependence on Russian gas is already much greater. In recent years,

Moscow has increasingly sought to use energy supplies as an instrument of foreign
policy leverage. Russia has actively sought bilateral energy deals with a number of European countries and
individual countries,

acquired large-scale ownership of European energy infrastructure. At the same time, analysts assert that Russia has
not applied Western standards of transparency and market reciprocity regarding business practices and investment

In addition, the possibility of upstream gas cutoffs, as occurred in disputes

between Russia and Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, has posed a concern for many of the countries dependent
on Russian natural gas supplies, especially given tensions between Russia and Ukraine over the past year. Many
U.S. officials and Members of Congress have regarded European energy security as
a U.S. interest. In particular, there has been concern in the United States over the
influence that Russian energy dominance could have on the ability to present a united transatlantic
position when it comes to other issues related to Russia. Successive U .S. Administrations have
encouraged EU member states to reduce energy dependence on Russia through
diversification of supply and supported European steps to develop alternative
sources and increase energy efficiency. However, Europe faces numerous challenges in
its attempts to diversify its energy supply. North Africa is often viewed as the most likely
alternate supplier of natural gas, but political and economic instability in the region have thus far
hindered the expansion of its role. Increased supply from Central Asia has been largely dependent
on the construction of new pipelines, but among other complications, Russia has worked to
prevent the development of alternative pipelines outside its control that would link Europe
policy.

directly to Central Asian suppliers. Many European countries have also emphasized the development of renewable
energy, but there are questions about how much of a contribution these sources will ultimately provide.

European leaders have sought, with mixed success, to develop a stronger common
European energy strategy that coordinates member states energy policies. The EU has pursued
initiatives to liberalize and integrate the internal European energy market , including by
expanding the interconnection of grids and pipelines. Recent events in Ukraine and Crimea have
created a renewed sense of urgency in relation to such efforts. Several European countries have built
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, expanded pipeline interconnectivity with neighbors, and
developed the ability to reverse the flow of gas in pipelines in order to mitigate the consequences of a crisis, such
as a cut-off of Russian gas. In April 2014, then-Prime Minister Tusk of Poland suggested the formation of an EU

European agency would purchase natural gas for all 28

members, rather than the current system of bilateral negotiations and contracts. Such an energy union would
energy union in which a single

also include solidarity mechanisms for member states to aid one another in cases of supply disruption. Before
recent events in Ukraine,

the EU had already adopted legislation seeking to introduce

more competition and transparency in the energy sector by unbundling the ownership of gas
production from distribution, and requiring an independent operator of transit and transmission systems. This

legislation, combined with a European Commission investigation against the

business practices of Gazprom, has been sharply criticized by Russia. In December 2014, Russia
announced the cancellation of the South Stream project, a pipeline that would have run from Russia under the Black
Sea to Bulgaria and then onto other European countries, bypassing Ukraine. Some analysts interpreted the
cancellation as a product of Russian frustration, both with EU bureaucratic obstacles to the pipelines construction
and European criticism of Russias actions in Ukraine. Other observers suggest that these reasons provided a cover
to abandon a project that had become politically and financially burdensome for Russia .

Although Europe is
likely to remain Russias main gas buyer for some years, Russia is also seeking to
diversify its markets by concluding pipeline construction deals with China and
Turkey.

The EU wants US LNGthe US has enough to export to the EU and prevent

Ukraine Crisis
DePillis 14Lydia is a reporter for the Washington Post (A leaked document shows
just how much the EU wants a piece of Americas fracking boom July 8, 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/08/could-a-trade-deallift-the-u-s-longstanding-ban-on-crude-oil-exports-europe-thinks-so/)//JLee
The European Union is pressing the United States to lift its longstanding ban on crude oil exports
through a sweeping trade and investment deal, according to a secret document from the negotiations obtained by
The Washington Post. It's not entirely surprising. The

EU has made its desire for the right to

import U.S. oil known since the U.S. started producing large amounts of it in the
mid-2000s. It signaled again at the outset of trade negotiations, and its intentions have become even more clear
since. This time, though, the EU is adding another argument: Instability on its Eastern flank
threatens to cut off the supply of oil and natural gas from Russia. "The current
crisis in Ukraine confirms the delicate situation faced by the EU with regard to energy dependence," reads
the document, which is dated May 27. The leak comes in advance of another round of
discussions on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which kicked off last fall and is expected to
encompass $4.7 trillion in trade between the U.S. and the European Union when it's
finished (here's an explainer on the deal). That won't happen for several years if ever but knowledge of the
E.U.'s position has inflamed the already-hot debate over whether to allow the U.S.' newfound bounty of
crude oil to be exported overseas. Particularly irksome to environmentalists is the
EU's request that the U.S. make a "legally binding commitment" to export its oil and
gas, which U.S. negotiators have so far resisted, according to the correspondence. (The U.S. Trade Representative
declined to comment on a leaked document, except to say that it's too early to characterize its position on any

"We find it particularly outrageous that a trade agreement negotiated behind

closed doors is being used as a means to secure automatic access to both crude oil
and natural gas," said Ilana Solomon, director of the responsible trade program at the Sierra Club. "By lifting
matter).

the ban, you're creating a whole new market for the oil industry to export to, and windfall profits for oil companies,

The issues of natural gas and

oil are closely related, but distinct . The U.S. already allows more natural gas to be
exported, especially to countries with which it already has trade agreements. Crude oil
which means more money to frack more, to produce more, to burn more."

is the one thing that's remained at essentially zero exports since 1975, when Congress banned its sale to preserve
access if something like the Arab oil embargo were to occur again.

refined petroleum products in recent years.

The U.S. has been exporting more

(EIA) Now, Europe feels that it's in a similar situation.

Although fossil fuel use has been declining, it's still not ready to transition to renewable energy sources, and
remains heavily dependent on imported oil 39 percent of which comes from the tumultuous Middle East and

The U.S. is a huge potential source of supply,

having recently overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of oil and
gas. Also, while U.S. refiners had retrofitted their operations to process heavier oil imported from the Canadian tar
Africa, and 42 percent from the former Soviet Union.

sands before the fracking boom delivered a flood of new supply, Europe's refineries are well-equipped to handle it.

But who, exactly, is pushing for more U.S. crude behind the EU's unified veneer?
The Council of the European Union did not respond to a request for comment. Industry
watchers, though, point out that Germany still depends on oil as its primary source of energy as opposed to, say,
France, which gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants (though oil still supplies about a third of its

Half of Germany's oil comes from former Soviet Union nations, and
some of it used to come from Libya before rebels shut down export terminals there (the supply only
energy needs*).

just started flowing again). Germany is very influential within the EU, and may have pushed the trading bloc to raise
its voice on measures that would help it diversify its supply over the long term ;

the letter itself admits

that there's no way to stabilize Ukraine with U.S. oil imports soon enough to make a
difference. Plus, Europe's protest isn't just about oil. It's also about messaging. The
first message is external. The letter emphasizes that both parties give lip service to the
idea of free trade, and America lifting its own giant violation of that principle the
crude oil export ban would demonstrate to countries like China that the two economic superpowers are serious
about tearing down barriers. "Combatting

resource nationalism, together vis--vis third

countries,

while at the same time allowing for export restrictions to exist between us sends the wrong message
to our partners," the letter reads, "and offers some of these resource-rich countries a great opportunity to interpret
trade rules in a way which is detrimental to our economies." T he

second message, though, is

internal: Securing additional energy supplies may help the EU negotiators to sell the
agreement to their member states, especially when they might also have to give up some of their
protectionist sacred cows, like the agricultural subsidies that have propped up European farmers for decades. "The
Europeans really want to set a precedent, to make a point, that they want free trade and a more liquid market,"

who edits the EU trade analysis service Borderlex, where she wrote
about a previous leak on the treaty's energy chapter. "After the oil shock in the 1970s, energy
says Iana Dreyer,

has been so securitized, that the mindset has really changed now we need a big flexible global market so that
nobody can control it." For its part, the White House has made some moves in recent weeks to free up some
subcategories of oil for export, which excited the industry and alarmed environmentalists. And in its letter, t he

EU
expresses confidence that automatically granting export licenses to treaty parties
would "not require that the U.S. amend its existing legislation on oil and gas." It's
unclear how that would happen. Senator Ed Markey (D.-Mass) who thinks Ukraine should kick its
Russian fossil fuel habit through better energy efficiency has outlined the legal reasons why
the White House couldn't just lift the ban outright through executive action. Meanwhile, however, the ban itself may
be illegal under international trade law. Although no one has ever challenged the U.S. at the World Trade
Organization, the American Petroleum Institute composed of oil majors like Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and BP
intimated late last year that it might do so if the restriction isn't lifted through other means. A nd

while the
U.S. and European governments may not be on the same page on this issue, very
large corporate interests on both sides of the pond see it as a top priority. "Because
U.S. and European companies, including energy companies, have invested heavily
on both sides of the Atlantic, U.S. and EU negotiators are essentially representing
the same company interests," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vice president for Europe Peter Chase
told Bloomberg. That legal challenge has a non-zero chance of success, says Jim Bacchus, a former chair of the
WTO's appellate body who argued for the National Association of Manufacturers that natural gas export restrictions

WTO rules prohibit restrictions

on exports of any kind, unless they take the form of taxes, " Bacchus says. "There has always
would run afoul of international trade rules as well. "Generally speaking,

been this notion that somehow energy products are not products that follow the scope of the WTO treaty. There's no
legal basis for that view." If the ban stayed in place, however, there's no guarantee the oil would stay in the ground,

U.S. refineries would likely just reconfigure

themselves again to process the stuff, and import less heavy oil from Canada. That's
as environmentalists would prefer. Rather,

it becomes apparent that the U.S. isn't going to

do what Europe wants. Overall, the effects of lifting or weakening the ban might not
be as large as either proponents or opponents say especially compared to measures like fuel
efficiency standards, which have already driven down demand on both sides of the Atlantic.
already started, and will likely move even faster if

--xt: NB: Russia Expanding Now

Putin is using Gazprom as an aggressive political tool to decrease
democracy in the Baltics
Valkov 14Volodymyr is a human rights activist, researcher, and political analyst,
as well as a project manager at the American Jewish Ukrainian Bureau for Human
Rights UCSJ in Lviv, Ukraine. He holds an MA in International Affairs from the
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.
(Expansionism: The Core of Russia's Foreign Policy August 12, 2014
http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/articles-and-commentary/1292-expansionism-thecore-of-russia-s-foreign-policy)//JLee
Russia is becoming increasingly expansionist on the international arena. The
annexation of Crimea, the naming of Ukraine's eastern regions as
Novorossiya (New Russia) using tsarist terminology, revival of Soviet symbolism and
mythology, the sponsorship of terrorism and separatism in Ukraine, the organisation of frozen
conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, coercive creation of the Eurasian Union, aggressive use of
Vladimir Putin's

Gazprom as a political tool , and the formulation of a right to protect Russian

speakers abroad it is not hard to find examples of Russia's aggressive
expansionism. Russian expansionist foreign policy is clearly marked by anti-Americanism. Russia seems to
be particularly interested in issues that have a high potential of breaking
coalitions between the United States and its European partners. One of them is
Russian facilitation of activities that expose American intelligence practices. Perhaps symbolically, Russia is reviving the direct
geographical rivalry with the US as might be seen from the cancellation of Cuba's Soviet era debt, Putin's Latin American tour and
the creation of the BRICS development bank, opposition to the US on Syria and repeated attempts at intensifying Russian-Chinese

Russian politics is run

mostly by a network of former communists and ex-KGB officers . Russia continues to
relations. Russia is still a backward country in the political, social and economic aspects.

dwell on the glory of the Soviet Union, uncertain as it may be, and victory in the Second World War. Human capital is

Human rights do
not exist in Russia and Russia's budget and export consists mainly of oil and gas
revenues. Most of the budget is spent on arms acquisition . The list of Russian backwardness
continues, but at this point from what we have seen happening in Ukraine due to Russian
actions compellingly indicates that Russian expansionism is a very
dangerous development in the international system. The downing of Malaysian flight MH17
underestimated and human life in general is one of the cheapest, most undervalued resources in Russia.

also demonstrates Russia's extremely poor judgment in creating, equipping and using terrorist groups for achieving dubious foreign
policy objectives.

Russian expansionism is directly opposed to the spread of

democracy, especially in the former Soviet republics and even more so in

Ukraine . Russian current leadership views Ukraine as part of its own original territory and
considers Ukrainians as part of the same Russian people . This position was presented
clearly by Putin during a state-organised live TV call-in show in April 2014 as well as on many other occasions. The EuroMaidan is

The Russian government is using

every available opportunity to smear Ukraine's growing commitment to
democracy. One of the most disturbing examples of such government-sponsored Ukraine bashing was performed at the
now being vilified by the Russian puppet media as a fascist coup dtat.

open-air show in Crimea on August 9th, where Ukraine was theatrically portrayed to the audience as a having been overrun by
fascist forces and later gloriously liberated by Russian troops. Until the Maidan protest that united most Ukrainians in their choice for

as Ukraine is making another

attempt to leave Moscow's authoritarian geopolitical orbit, overcome
Soviet-era corruption and build democracy, Russia is desperate to use
a democratic future, Russian expansionism was not clearly visible. Now,

force in order to prevent a successful democratic transformation of

Ukraine. Ukraine's resistance to Russia has led to the greatest conflict in the post-Soviet area, surpassing the fighting during
the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 in terms of infrastructure damage and casualties. Today Russia's militarism has reached its highest

Putin's territorial claims, distortion of history, incitement of interethnic hatred, provocative preludes to war, invasive military and foreign
policy doctrines, anti-democratic, anti-European and anti-American
rhetoric all suggest the following: Putin's dictatorship is Europe's greatest
level.

threat . Ukraine's resistance to Russias unprovoked aggression

demonstrates that the dissemination and spread of democratic values
works . Democracy has succeeded in Poland and it is now changing
Ukraine. Democratic and European aspirations are transforming Georgia and Moldova. They will
eventually work in Russia, but never under Putin's regime and only if
Ukraine does not fail as a democracy. After the economic misery of the 1990s, the Russian people are
distrustful of democracy. That is the fear that Putin has exploited so far to steal their liberties in return for his effective
management. Putin offers a minimum standard of living and stability in exchange for the curtailment of individual freedoms.

Another national fear that the Russian government is manufacturing to

intimidate the society is that of democracy itself. The Kremlin seeks to
show that democracy is incompatible with the Russian tradition of
government, incapable to meet the needs of the Russian people, and
citing the Ukrainian example that democracy in a weak state can bring
fascists to power. Without a successful example of democracy in a
country that most Russians can most easily relate to, the corrupt Russian
ruling elite will continue to promote xenophobic and anti-democratic fears
in the Russian society, enticing the people to accept dictatorship as a preferred
model. The democratisation of Ukraine is the most pragmatic , realistic and
affordable long-term strategy against Russia's expansionism and authoritarian
values. The West must double its support for the democratisation of the
former Soviet countries that are showing their interest in such values. Almost 70 years of Soviet communism and
44 years of Cold War did not suddenly end in 1991. It must be clearly understood by the western countries, many of whom have
little or no experience of the Soviet system, that some parts of the population in the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, still
feverishly hope for the restoration of some semblance of the Soviet Union. This is the section of population that is being used by
Putin in eastern Ukraine in order to sustain his expansion. While the core of Russia's foreign policy is expansionism, the essence of
its internal policy is isolation. The most recent example of the disappearing freedom of expression in Russia is the law adopted in
April 2014 that requires a registration of bloggers who have more than 3000 subscribers. Another law adopted by the Russian
parliament in May 2014 prescribes criminal responsibility for saying that Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Clearly, Putin's regime is intent
on blocking ideas and shutting down criticism not only from outside but also from its own people. The internal restriction of political
and civil rights provides an important insight. It illustrates that Russia is not only at war with the West, but also at war with itself.
And it also means that the Russian-Ukrainian War is not simply a war of military muscle, but a war of values. The toughest European
and American sanctions are absolutely justified and necessary to stop Russia from acquiring control over Ukraine, or parts of

The occupation of eastern

parts of the Ukrainian territory is evidently on the Kremlins immediate
agenda, as seen from the Russian earlier unaccomplished efforts on
August 9th to send humanitarian aid escorted by Russian troops to the
areas controlled by the Russia-sponsored terrorists and separatists. The
repeated attempt on August 12th to deliver humanitarian aid from Russia ,
Ukraine, including the illegal annexation of Crimea, which must be reversed.

which is said to consist of a convoy of 280 trucks, this time presumably cleared of any Russian military supervision and the process

is also highly likely to become a source of provocation with the

potential to create a pretext for the deployment of Russian military forces
in Ukraine. If Russia succeeds in swallowing Ukraine, or any of its parts, by
imposing its own vision of order, it will subsequently enable Russia to
of its distribution

impose its decision-making authority over other post-Soviet states,

continuing to change the map of Europe, inflaming conflict areas
the world and professionalising terrorism.

in other parts of

**Guantanamo Bay CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should shut down
the detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay.
The CP solvesclosing Gitmo would help end the friction
between the US-EU relations
Archick 14Kristin is a specialist in European Affairs for the Congressional
Research Service (U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism December 1, 2014
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf)//JLee
U.S. and European officials alike maintain that the imperative to provide freedom
and security at home should not come at the cost of sacrificing core principles with respect to civil liberties
and upholding common standards on human rights . Nevertheless, the status and
treatment of suspected terrorist detainees has often been a key point of U.S.-European
tension. Especially during the former George W. Bush Administration, a number of U.S. policies
were subject to widespread criticism in Europe ; these included the U.S.-run detention
facility at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba; U.S. plans to try enemy combatants before military commissions;
and the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition (or extrajudicial
transfer of individuals from one country to another, often for the purpose of interrogation) and the possible
presence of CIA detention facilities in Europe also gripped European media attention and prompted numerous

Some
individuals held at Guantnamo and/or allegedly subject to U.S. rendition have been
European citizens or residents. Many European leaders and analysts viewed these
U.S. terrorist detainee and interrogation policies as being in breach of international
and European law, and as degrading shared values regarding human rights and the treatment of prisoners.
Moreover, they feared that such U.S. policies weakened U.S. and European efforts to
win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds, considered by many to be a crucial
element in countering terrorism. The Bush Administration, however, defended its detainee and rendition
investigations by the European Parliament, national legislatures, and judicial bodies, among others.

polices as important tools in the fight against terrorism, and vehemently denied allegations that such policies
violated U.S. human rights commitments. Bush Administration officials acknowledged European concerns about
Guantnamo and sought agreements with foreign governments to accept some Guantnamo detainees, but
maintained that certain prisoners were too dangerous to be released.

U.S.-EU frictions over

terrorist detainee policies have subsided to some degree since the start of the Obama
Administration. EU and other European officials welcomed President Obamas
announcement in January 2009 that the United States intended to close the detention facility
at Guantnamo within a year. They were also pleased with President Obamas executive order banning torture
and his initiative to review Bush Administration legal opinions regarding detention and interrogation methods. In

the U.S. State Department appointed a special envoy to work on closing

the detention facility, tasked in particular with persuading countries in Europe and elsewhere to accept
March 2009,

detainees cleared for release but who could not be repatriated to their country of origin for fear of torture or
execution. Some EU members accepted small numbers of released detainees, but others declined. At the same
time, the Obama Administration has faced significant challenges in its efforts to close Guantnamo. S ome

observers contend that U.S. officials have been frustrated by the reluctance of other
countries, including some in Europe, to take in more detainees . Congressional opposition to
elements of the Administrations plan for closing Guantnamo, and certain restrictions imposed by
Congress (including on the Administrations ability to transfer detainees to other countries amid concerns that some

Consequently, the
Obama Administration has not fulfilled its promise to shut down Guantnamo. In
released detainees were engaging in terrorist activity), have also presented obstacles.

March 2011, President Obama signed an executive order that in effect created a formal system of indefinite
detention for those detainees at Guantnamo not charged or convicted but deemed too dangerous to free. The
Administration also announced in March 2011 an end to its two-year freeze on new military commission trials for

Some European policy makers continue to worry that as long as

Guantnamo remains open, it helps serve as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, its
Guantnamo detainees.73

affiliates, and other Islamist extremist groups. European officials have also voiced concern about the physical wellbeing of those detainees at Guantnamo who began hunger strikes in early 2013 to protest their ongoing

the European Parliament adopted a resolution that expressed

concern for those on hunger strike, and again called upon the United States to close
the detention facility.74 The Obama Administration asserts that it remains committed to closing
Guantnamo. In late May 2013, President Obama renewed his pledge to work toward this goal,
and announced that U.S. authorities would restart the process of sending home or resettling in third
incarceration. In May 2013,

countries those detainees already cleared for transfer. In August 2013, the Administration released two Algerian
detainees (the first such releases in nearly a year), after certifying to Congress that they no longer posed a threat to
U.S. national security. Media sources indicate that nine additional detainees were transferred to other countries
during the remainder of 2013, including three to Slovakia. In December 2013, Congress passed a measure in the
FY2014 defense authorization bill (P.L. 113-66) easing restrictions on the Administrations ability to transfer low-risk

In signing the bill into law, President Obama asserted that it

was a welcome step toward ultimately closing the detention facility, but urged
Congress to lift other restrictions that still prevent the transfer of Guantnamo
detainees to prisons on U.S. soil for trial in U.S. courts . Some commentators suggest, however,
detainees to other countries.

that Congress may not be inclined to take further action aimed at shuttering Guantnamo amid the controversy
that erupted in late May 2014 following the Administrations transfer of five Taliban prisoners from Guantnamo to
Qatar (without prior congressional notification) in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity in
Afghanistan. Of the almost 800 individuals detained at Guantnamo since early 2002, press reports indicate that

European concerns also linger about the past

role of European governments in U.S. terrorist detainee policies and practices . In
143 remained as of the end of November 2014.75

September 2012, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution (by 568 votes to 34, with 77 abstentions)

calling upon EU member states to investigate whether CIA detention facilities had
existed on their territories.76 The resolution urged Lithuania, Poland, and Romania in particular to open or
resume independent investigations, and called on several other member states to fully disclose all relevant
information related to suspected CIA flights on their territory .

Meanwhile, some U.S. and European

officials worry that allegations of U.S. wrongdoing and rendition-related criminal
proceedings against CIA officers in some EU states (stemming from the Bush era) continue
to cast a long shadow and could put vital U.S.-European intelligence cooperation
against terrorism at risk.77

RelationsFrance

**Counter-Terrorism Cooperation 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should
substantially increase its counter-terrorism programs with the
French Republic.
Terror coop solves relations
Tinti 14Peter is an independent journalist who has written for Foreign Policy, the New
York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. (The US and France Are
Teaming Up to Fight A Sprawling War on Terror in Africa September 15, 2014
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-and-france-are-teaming-up-to-fight-a-sprawling-war-onterror-in-africa)//JLee
In July of this year,

France launched Operation Barkhane,

an ambitious counterterrorism initiative

spread across five countries in Africa's Sahel and Sahara regions . The mission seeks to build
upon the success of the French military intervention that drove al Qaeda-linked jihadi militants from northern Mali in

the US is expanding its own counterterrorism operations on

the continent, setting the stage for what some analysts consider a burgeoning FrancoAmerican alliance in Africa. "This is a new chapter in French-American
relations," Michael Shurkin, a former CIA analyst who is now a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, told
VICE News. "There is an unprecedented level of cooperation going on." In an
August 11 memo to US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, President
Barack Obama, citing an "unforeseen emergency," authorized the transfer of up to $10
million "to assist France in its efforts to secure Mali, Niger, and Chad from terrorists and violent
extremism." The move hints at a division of labor in which the US foots the bill for a cash-strapped
French military that is both logistically and politically better placed than the US to engage in combat
operations in the Sahel. An even more striking example of US-French counterterror cooperation in
Africa may have taken place earlier this month, when US airstrikes in Somalia killed
Ahmed Godane, co-founder of the al Shabaab Islamist group. Subsequent reporting by French magazine Le
Point suggests that the actionable intelligence leading to Godane's death came from the
French, an indication that the two nations already have mechanisms in place for tight cooperation at a highly
2013, and comes at a time when

sensitive level.

**Space Cooperation 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should increase
its cooperation with the French Republic on Science and
Technology.
CP solvesthe US and France collaboration solves relations
White House 14The White House is the house where President Barack Obama
lives in. (FACT SHEET: U.S.-France Cooperation on Science and Technology
February 11, 2014 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/11/factsheet-us-france-cooperation-science-and-technology)//JLee
The United States and France have long collaborated on science and technology , which
enhances the well-being of our citizens, promotes commercial innovation and
economic growth, and advances the human condition not just for our citizens, but for people
across the globe. In 2008, the United States and France signed agreements on science and technology, including in
the area of homeland security. Significant

work has been carried out under these

agreements, and the United States remains firmly committed to collaborating with
France over a wide range of disciplines including civil space, global health, innovation and research
exchanges, the environment, and protecting our citizens. Hallmarks of our bilateral cooperation include: Civil Space

The United States and France have a strong partnership in civil space activities,
including human space flight, space science, and Earth observation. In human space
flight, the French Space Agency (CNES) has been indispensable to Europes
partnership on the International Space Station, and the Government of France was a key
participant in the recent International Space Exploration Forum, where spacefaring nations renewed their

CNES has been a key partner with the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in Mars exploration over the
past 20 years and continuing into the future with the MAVEN mission that will arrive at Mars later this year.
The United States and France are signing an agreement for the Mars Insight mission
commitment to cooperative exploration of the solar system.

planned for launch in 2016 and are continuing to negotiate an agreement on solar activity and space weather, both

Earth Science collaboration with France

on a series of currently operating missions is improving life on Earth by enhancing
our ability to observe changes in the Earths systems, which provides such benefits as more
of which will push the boundaries of scientific exploration.

accurate weather forecasting and increased understanding of global climate change. Global Health In 2014 and

the United States and France will both host events building on the G8 Summit
on Dementia, hosted by the United Kingdom in 2013. The United States and France
partner on HIV/AIDS research, as well as on neurological aspects of substance abuse. The United States
2015,

also continues to work jointly with France on computational neuroscience, which is part of President Obamas Brain

Cooperation between the

U.S. government and French and American NGOs includes work to prevent
meningococcal meningitis in Africa. Nearly 300 French researchers were involved in National Institutes
of Health (NIH) supported grants in FY 2013. Innovation and Research Exchanges The U.S. National
Science Foundation (NSF) currently supports several hundred research projects
involving U.S. and French investigators. This includes 13 bilateral research projects in the areas of
nanomaterials, nanochemistry, and joint multi-million dollar investments on supercomputing research
infrastructure. France hosts 16 NSF Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide (GROW) graduate research
fellows, the largest number in GROWs first year, which expands international research
opportunities and furthers collaborative research between our two countries. The U.S.
Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.

on
nanometrology, metals speciation, fire research, information technology, optical
lattices, and muonic hydrogen with visiting researchers from each country working
in the other. Environment The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)s Office of
Research and Development and a French cosmetics firm are investigating new
screening methods that are faster, cheaper, and reduce the use of laboratory animals and, if
successful, could be used to evaluate thousands of chemicals found in commonly used products. EPA
collaborated with another French firm to evaluate nitrogen and ozone air sensor
performance, which contributes to efforts to advance low-cost sensor technology for monitoring air quality.
Additionally, work between NIST and the University of Pau has advanced
understanding of measurement of metal species, particularly in situations associated with
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has worked with French partner institutions

environmental contamination.

RelationsGermany

**1nc
Text (WIP): The United States federal government should end
foreign surveillance of Germany.
The counterplan solves German relations theyre down now
due to the Snowden revelations
Chollet 4/6 writer for Politico
Derek Chollet, 4/6/2015, Politico, US-German relations need a reboot,
http://www.politico.eu/article/us-german-relations-reboot/, 7/12/2015, \\BD
The Snowden revelations were the spark that ignited the current firestorm. Germans
remain apoplectic over reports about US intelligence operations on German soil,
especially the monitoring of Merkels cell phone, as well as the German intelligence
services close cooperation with the NSA . This lit a large stack of kindling, with many Germans
already anxious about the dominance of US technology companies like Google, the implications of American-

Germans
discuss these concerns with an abundance of emotion, complaining of betrayal and
a lack of trust. Seven years ago, more than 200,000 Germans swooned at Obamas appearance in Berlins
Tiergarten, but recent polls show that Obamas German approval ratings on foreign
policy and overall favorability are plummeting.
promoted trade deals, and the sense that they are on the short-end of the US strategic shift to Asia.

--xt Solvency
German surveillance collapses US-German relations the
counterplan solves
Faiola 5/1 - Berlin Bureau Chief for The Washington Post Anthony Faiola,
5/1/2015, The Washington Post, Germans, still outraged by NSA spying, learn their
country may have helped, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/nsascandal-rekindles-in-germany-with-an-ironic-twist/2015/04/30/030ec9e0-ee7e-11e48050-839e9234b303_story.html, 7/12/2015, \\BD
BERLIN The uproar shaking the halls of power here could aptly be titled, NSA Scandal II: The Sequel. But

in

this latest spy drama, the nefarious Americans have a co-conspirator: the
recalcitrant German intelligence service. Outrage in Germany over American
snooping erupted in 2013, after data released by whistleblower Edward Snowden
disclosed U.S. surveillance of friendly European targets up to and including
Chancellor Angela Merkel. But fresh revelations suggest that the Bundesnachrichtendienst Berlins
foreign intelligence arm, also known as the BND may have separately aided U.S. agents with snooping on

The targets, according to a report

in the German newspaper Sddeutsche Zeitung on Thursday, included French and
European Commission officials. The new disclosures center on a list of 2,000
suspicious selectors including phone numbers, IP addresses and e-mails
provided by the United States and plugged into German intelligence data systems
that the Germans later determined exceeded the operations mandate . The German
hundreds of European companies, regional entities and politicians.

government has privately acknowledged the existence of the list to select lawmakers but has not clarified the
targets, according to one of the parliamentarians briefed on the issue but who spoke on the condition of anonymity

After the Snowden disclosures, Merkel berated

Washington by saying that spying on friends is a no-go. The new revelations are
now rocking the government to its core. A bevy of German lawmakers is demanding answers to
because the briefing was classified.

highly uncomfortable questions, some aimed at top figures in Merkels cabinet. Next week, they will summon
intelligence officials before two parliamentary committees to testify; some are even threatening to call Merkel.

Its comparatively the largest internal link surveillance is

pushing Germany to Russia
Smith 14 writer for NBC News Alexander Smith, 8/2/2014, NBC News, U.S. Spy
Scandal Triggers Outrage, Paranoia in Germany,
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nsa-snooping/u-s-spy-scandal-triggers-outrageparanoia-germany-n170366, 7/12/2015, \\BD
A slew of allegations that Washington has been spying on longtime ally Germany
has plunged Berlin's corridors of power into a state of paranoia reminiscent of the
Cold War era. Some analysts even suggest the crisis could even end with the "nightmare
scenario" of Germany being pushed away from the West and embracing Russia. The
relationship has been rocky since NSA files leaked by Edward Snowden last year
alleged that U.S. intelligence officials bugged the cellphone of Germanys leader,
Chancellor Angela Merkel. Bitter memories of the Nazi Gestapo and East Germany's
Stasi mean spying isn't as accepted by the public as in the U.S. The crisis exploded last
month when two German government staffers were accused of spying for the U.S. This led to the top CIA
official stationed in Germany being asked to leave the country an unprecedented

move between friendly nations. It has left sections of the German parliament, the Bundestag, taking
counter-measures to make sure sensitive discussions remain private. The parliamentary committee set
up to investigate NSA-type surveillance has resorted to using soundproof rooms,
playing loud classical music during briefings, and even considering ditching email in
favor of typewriters in a bid to protect against further breaches , its chair Patrick Sensburg
told NBC News. Merkels public statements on the topic have been terse and she is said
to be furious about the breach of trust. "We have questions to the U.S. government and these
questions are not answered yet, and maybe thats why the chief of intelligence had to leave the country?" said
Sensburg, a lawmaker in Merkel's Christian Democratic Union party. " To

bring back trust I think the U.S.

government needs to start providing answers." According to the German newspaper
Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany's own spies have even shifted some of their focus from old antagonists like China
and Iran to watching the clandestine activities of American operatives on their own soil. " The

situation has
become extremely bad and it is seriously regrettable it has gotten to this stage ," said
Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at England's University of
Buckingham. "With the Middle East in turmoil it is not a good time for a country that is democratic and Western to

Its not yet at the nightmare scenario - one in which

Germany gets closer to Russia - but its heading toward that."
be at loggerheads with the U.S.

RelationsRussia

**1nc
Text: The United States federal government should repeal its
sanctions on the Russian Federation.
Repealing sanctions solves US-Russia relations current
sanctions fail EU models
Wang 3/26 School of Government, Beijing Normal University, China Wan Wang,
3/26/2015, Journal of Politics and Law, Impact of Western Sanctions on Russia in
the Ukraine Crisis,
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/45567/25287,
7/12/2015, \\BD
Russia will not change its targets related to its core interests. Russia cannot lose influence in Ukraine, at least not

Therefore, on the Crimea and Ukraine issues,

Russia will not give up its position, which is bound to prompt the US and Europe to
continue to impose sanctions against Russia and to intensify the antagonism
between Russia and the West. As stated by President Barack Obama at the quarterly Business
in letting Ukraine be a one-sided ally to the west.

Roundtable meeting on December 3, 2014, But if you ask me if Im optimistic that Putin suddenly changes his
mindset, I dont think that will happen until the politics inside Russian catch up with whats happening in the
economy, which is why we are going to continue to maintain that pressure. The challenge is [that] this is working
for him politically inside of Russia, even though it is isolating Russia completely internationally (Expert Online,

Western sanctions against Russia will not end any time soon,
which will continue to undermine US-Russian relations, which were uncertain
even before the Ukraine crisis. Currently, the EU stands in a united front with the US to impose sanctions
against Russia. However, as the negative consequences of Russias retaliatory measures
against the EU become increasingly serious, the outcries to end the sanctions
within the EU will get louder, and the EU may lose interest in the sanctions against
Russia along with the US. Ultimately, on the Ukraine and Crimea issues, certain compromises between
2014, December 3). Thus,

Russia and the US-Europe must be reached; nevertheless, the USs containment of Russia will not end soon.

--xt Solvency
Russian sanctions are the largest internal link to relations
Ibragimova 1/7 writer for Russia direct, citing the director of the Russian
International Affairs Council Galiya Ibragimova, 1/7/2015, Russia Direct, What's
next for US-Russia relations in 2015?, http://www.russia-direct.org/debates/whatsnext-us-russia-relations-2015, 7/12/2015, \\BD
As the year draws to a close, it is customary for Russia Direct to poll experts about
the prospects for U.S.-Russian relations in the coming year . In 2014, the military
confrontation in the southeast of Ukraine and Crimeas incorporation into Russia
prompted the West to impose sanctions against Russia and sharply aggravated U.S.Russian relations. There was even talk of a new Cold War. Not surprisingly, when it
comes to relations between the two countries in 2015, expert forecasts are not
overly optimistic. However, all recognize the importance of maintaining at least a minimum level of dialogue
between Moscow and Washington. Andrei Kortunov, general director of the Russian
International Affairs Council (RIAC) I see no grounds to be optimistic about U.S.Russian relations in 2015. The main problem will be the impact of anti-Russian
sanctions on relations between Moscow and Washington . It is not a question of whether
relations between the Kremlin and the White House will be neutral or bad, but of how bad. The main thing is to
avert a worsening of the crisis and to try to maintain a dialogue. Issues such as combating terrorism, preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Irans nuclear program and Syria could provide a way to extend
opportunities for dialogue. Environmental issues and climate change could also be points of tentative contact

under U.S. President Barack Obamas present

administration, no one should expect U.S.-Russian relations to stabilize.
between Russia and the West next year. But

Even Putin admits the counterplan is the best way to solve

Russian relations
Anishchuk 14 writer for Reuters, citing Putin Alexei Anishchuk, 7/14/2014,
Reuters, U.S. sanctions will take Russia relations to a dead end: Putin,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-putinidUSKBN0FL2VA20140717, 7/12/2015, \\BD
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Wednesday that U.S. sanctions will take
relations with Russia to a "dead end" and damage U.S. business interests in his
country. "Sanctions have a boomerang effect and without any doubt they will push
U.S.-Russian relations into a dead end, and cause very serious damage," he said to
reporters on a visit to Brazil. The U.S. government on Wednesday, because of what it views
as Russia's interference in Ukraine, imposed its most wide-ranging sanctions yet, on
key players in the country's economy, including Gazprombank and Rosneft Oil Co, and other major
banks and energy and defense companies. Putin said he needed to see the details of the sanctions to
understand their full scope. But he added that he was sure the sanctions would damage the
national interests of the United States in the long run . "This means that U.S.
companies willing to work in Russia will lose their competitiveness next to other
global energy companies," he said. Putin said the sanctions will hurt Exxon Mobil Corp which has been
given the opportunity to operate in Russia. "So, do they not want it to work there? They are causing damage to
their major energy companies," he said. The new sanctions also target senior Russian officials, including the
deputy head of the State Duma, or parliament, the minister of the Crimea, a commander of the Russian intelligence
agency FSB, and a Ukrainian separatist leader, several of whom had already been targeted by the European Union.

Russian sanctions only embolden Putin the counterplan

solves
Charap 15 - Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies based in the IISSUS in Washington, DC Samuel Charap, March
2015, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Why Sanctions on Russia Will Backfire,
http://perspectives.carnegie.org/us-russia/sanctions-russia-will-backfire/,
7/12/2015, \\BD
by imposing sanctions on Russia when it was already falling into a downward
economic spiral, Washington has given Mr. Putin a powerful political instrument to
deflect blame for the consequences of his own baleful decisions in Ukraine . The
Fourth,

Kremlins model of state capitalism was already struggling and its performance would have been poor without the

American sanctions arrived with perfect timing,

providing him an alibi that he has skillfully used to confuse the Russian people
about the cause of their economic woes. Fifth, even if sanctions are carefully crafted to punish
specific actors, ordinary Russians perceive the Wests sanctions to be directed against
them and it is they who are being forced to bear the real costs of soaring inflation,
the rubles collapse and slowing growth . Russians sense that they are under attack
has generated an understandable rallying around the flag phenomenon. Mr.
Putins all-time-high approval ratings are one result; the other is the near-complete
geopolitical upheaval that Mr. Putin has created.

marginalization of dissenting voices. Sadly, Sundays march to memorialize the slain opposition leader, Boris
Nemtsov, will not change this. If Russia faces greater economic turbulence in the coming months and years,

Russia is likely to become

more belligerent if externally inflicted economic blows deepen the countrys crisis.
Moreover, a deeper downturn in Russia would worsen the economic woes of the
European Union, with potential knock-on effects globally.
America could face far more intractable problems than those that exist today.

Russian Econ Mod

Russian sanctions are collapsing Russias economy the
counterplan is key
Wang 3/26 School of Government, Beijing Normal University, China Wan Wang,
3/26/2015, Journal of Politics and Law, Impact of Western Sanctions on Russia in
the Ukraine Crisis,
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/45567/25287,
7/12/2015, \\BD
The Sanctions against Russia Have Caused a Significant Impact on Russias
Economy Under the sanctions, from early 2014 to the present, the ruble-dollar
exchange rate has fallen by nearly 50 %; on December 16, the rate plummeted 20
% in just one day. Russias domestic inflation rate has been as high as 11.4 %. Devaluation of the ruble
4.1.1

against the dollar has been largely caused by falling oil prices. Russia's oil and gas-related revenue accounts for

The US and European countries specifically targeted

Russias heavy revenue dependence on oil and gas exports and focused their
sanctions on the oil industry. The international price of oil price has dropped from to $ 115/barrel in 2014
to the current price of approximately $ 50/barrel; oil prices plunged precipitously this past
December, severely impacting Russias heavy reliance on oil exports. Russia's foreign
approximately 50 % of revenues.

exchange reserves have decreased to $ 416 billion. In 2014, Russia's capital outflow reached nearly $ 130 billion;
the Bank of Russia predicted that the capital outflow in 2015 would be approximately $ 120 billion (Expert Onlin,

Because the sanctions against Russias energy, finance and defence

sectors have caused tremendous capital outflows and plummeting foreign
exchange reserves, the Russian economy has been gravely affected; in October 2014,
2014 December 11).

the international credit rating agency Moody lowered Russia's sovereign credit rating from Baa1 to Baa2. Since

Under the impact

of the sanctions, Russias GDP growth in 2014 was not very optimistic at all, being
merely 0.2 % according to the estimate by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 0.5
2011, Russia's annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate has shown a downturn.

% according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and 0 according to the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Russian experts have estimated the losses caused by

Economic officials
believe that the long-term severe sanctions may shake the financial system and
limit scientific and technological modernization due to the restrictions in technology
introduction, investment and application (Yurgens, 2014, October 9).
the sanctions at approximately $4-5 billion per year (Inozemtsev, 2014, December 1).

at: Sanctions Solve Russian Aggression

No risk of offense sanctions have no effect on Russias
policies
Wang 3/26 School of Government, Beijing Normal University, China Wan Wang,
3/26/2015, Journal of Politics and Law, Impact of Western Sanctions on Russia in
the Ukraine Crisis,
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/45567/25287,
7/12/2015, \\BD
The Sanctions Have Not Led Russia to Change Its Position on the Issues of
Ukraine and Crimea Vladislav Inozemtsev, the director of the Russian think-tank the Post-Industrial
Research Center, believes that the sanctions have not changed the status quo: Crimea is
still under Russian control, while Russias actions in eastern Ukraine are mostly in
response to internal factors in Ukraine rather than as a reaction to the behavior of
the West (Inozemtsev, 2014, November 15). A senior administration official in the White House admitted that,
despite economic indicators showing that the sanctions have crippled the Russian
economy, they have not changed the situation in Ukraine and Crimea to date . At a
meeting with high-ranking military leaders on December 19, Putin vowed that Russia would never
abandon the patriots who supported the Crimean peninsula (Boxun, 2014, December 21).
4.1.3

Some people have thought that Russia respected the election results in Ukraine by not responding to the request
of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine for the reunification of Oblast to the Russian Federation that was proposed after the
referendum, indicating that the US and European sanctions have played a certain deterrent role in Russias
attitudes and behaviors towards Ukraine (Jian Jisong &Wang Hongxin, 2014). It is undoubtable that sanctions have

it should be noted that Russia might never intend

to allow the pro-Russian cities in eastern Ukraine to duplicate the Crimean
annexation and eventually join the Russian Federation. What Russia wanted probably was to
had an impact to a certain extent. However,

maintain its influential power in the eastern region of Ukraine. The international sanctions led by the US and

Russia still maintains

political stability domestically, and Putin's support rate has been at all-time high
levels; thus, Russia still adheres to its original positions on the Crimea and Ukraine
issues.
Europe have hindered the development of the Russian economy. However,

State Budgets

**1nc
The United States federal government should pass the
Marketplace Fairness Act.
The CP solves state budget shortfalls, generates economic
growth, and saves the economy
Lawson 2014 (Sherry [general manager of Westlake Center]; Guest: Tax online
and in-store sales equally with Marketplace Fairness Act; Jun 6;
seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023787731_sherrylawsonopedonlinesalestaxxxxml.
html; kdf)
Congress needs to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act so there is real and fair
competition reflecting 21st century commerce. America was built on promoting
economic growth and business in a fashion that ensures fair competition for all.
Today, online-only retailers are not required to charge and collect sales tax while local
businesses must. However, the sales tax (in all but five states) is still owed. The collection of these taxes is
difficult to enforce unless online sellers have either a physical store or a warehouse within the state. When sales tax
is not collected at the time of purchase, the burden falls on the consumer to report and pay. Compliance is virtually
nonexistent.

Based on a recent Ohio State University study, states are estimated to

lose $23 billion a year from uncollected sales taxes on online goods . The
current sales-tax code is confusing for consumers and companies. For example, Amazon.com is now legally required

The
Marketplace Fairness Act is not an additive tax. Its about ensuring all companies, regardless of
the type of business, pay the same taxes. The tax disparity puts local businesses at a
significant economic disadvantage and stifles the overall economy. According to a
to collect sales tax in 21 states, including the four most populous: California, New York, Florida and Texas.

July 2013 study conducted by Arthur B. Laffer and Donna Arduin, federal legislation that would allow states to close
the online sales-tax loopholes would result in a more efficient tax system, a larger tax base and lower tax rates for
all taxpayers. This would increase states prosperity and employment, increasing gross domestic product by more

It is time for Congress to

grant states the ability to correct the unfair application of sales-tax laws . How would the
than $563 billion and adding more than 1.5 million jobs in the next 10 years.

Marketplace Fairness Act impact our community? Westlake Center is one of the top shopping and tourist attractions
in Seattle. The center contributes more than $7.1 million annually in property and sales taxes that pay for public
services such as law enforcement, fire department, education and other services. Passage of the Marketplace
Fairness Act would allow Westlake Center and other brick-and-mortar retailers to compete fairly with online
retailers. Brick-and-mortar retailers are the economic engine that drives the local economy. The Marketplace
Fairness Act passed the U.S. Senate in early May 2013 and is currently under consideration in the House. U.S. Sens.
Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., both supported the bill in the Senate. Passing the act is simply
about enforcement of current tax law. Whether you shop at a store or online, taxation should be fair.

Federal Action Key

Federal action is key to growth and jobsensures e-fairness
Laffler and Arduin 2013 (Arthur B [best known for the Laffler curve-- CoChairman of the Free-Enterprise Fund] and Donna [balanced budgets in a bunch of
states]; Pro-growth tax reform and e-fairness; Jul;
standwithmainstreet.com/ArtLafferStudy.pdf; kdf)
Federal legislation can also empower states to implement pro-growth tax reform .
States that rely on a low rate, broad-based consumption tax have been struggling with the
problem of a declining sales tax base for many years . For states like Texas, Florida and
Tennessee that have eschewed an income tax, this declining base is particularly troubling. There are several drivers
behind this trend including inequities in the application of state sales taxes (e-fairness); certain states offering
special exemptions to certain goods; and the bias toward taxing goods and not services, despite the service

E-fairness legislation addresses the inequitable

treatment of different types of retailers based on whether the retailer is a.) located in the state
sectors growing share of the national economy.

(either a traditional brick and mortar store or an Internet/ remote retailer with a physical presence in the state) or
b.) an Internet retailer/remote seller that is solely located in another state. In-state retailers collect the sales tax
that is owed at the time of purchase. Out-ofstate retailers without in-state nexus are not obliged to collect the sales

When in-state residents purchase from out-of-state retailers, they are legally
required to report these purchases and pay the sales taxes owedtypically referred to as a
use tax. As you can imagine, few people do. And just so you dont go away surprised, there are some in-state
tax.

retailers who also evade their collection obligations and some out-of-state retailers that do collect taxes. You may
recall the story of former Tyco International Chairman Dennis Kozlowski, who, among other things, evaded $2+
million in state and local sales taxes owed to New York by having over $10 million of paintings shipped to New

This narrowing of the sales tax base has led to

several inefficiencies that, on balance, diminish potential job growth and growth in gross
state product (GSP). This Internet exemption creates a tax-based price advantage that encourages consumers to
Hampshire instead of to his home in Manhattan.3

make purchases from out-of-state retailers. Worse, the tax distortion incentivizes consumers to use in-state retailers
as a showroom to evaluate purchases prior to ultimately buying the product from out-of-state Internet retailers.
Such a practice reduces the need and costs for Internet sellers to put forth the effort to display products. Thus,
states are incentivizing residents to burden in-state businesses with retailing costs, but ultimately purchase their
goods from out-of-state businesses. Such incentives increase overall in-state retail costs and reduce overall in-state

The practice of treating in-state and Internet

retailers differently has also accelerated the decline in states sales tax bases ,
particularly in light of the explosive growth of Internet-based sales. As opposed to effectively
controlling government spending, however, the narrowing of the state sales tax base
(as a result of Internet sales estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars ), has led to higher tax
rates in some instances. As with any pro-growth tax reform, the effective sales tax base should be broadened by
sales. Its a lose/lose situation for in-state retailers.

treating out-of-state retailers on the same level playing field as in-state retailers, and the marginal tax rate should
be reduced such that the total static revenues for the government are held constant or reduced. If done properly,
expanding the state sales tax base by including Internet sales could reinvigorate economic growth. Addressing the
e-fairness problem from a pro-growth perspective creates several benefits for the economy. An inequity is
addressedall retailers would be treated equally under state law.4 It also provides states with the opportunity to
make their tax systems more efficient and to increase competition amongst all retailers. May the best business plan
win, without government picking winners and losers. As a consequence of more state by state efficiencies,

overall economic growth incentives of the U.S. economy will be improved.

the

Solves Economy
Leading economists find that the cp leads to economic growth
and jobs
Laffler and Arduin 2013 (Arthur B [best known for the Laffler curve-- CoChairman of the Free-Enterprise Fund] and Donna [balanced budgets in a bunch of
states]; Pro-growth tax reform and e-fairness; Jul;
standwithmainstreet.com/ArtLafferStudy.pdf; kdf)
Summary and Conclusion The principles behind addressing the online sales tax loophole
and enacting policies that will jumpstart economic growth are straightforward: ``While online
and other remote sales are subject to state and local sales and use taxes, they are often inaccurately
perceived as tax free because the taxes legally owed on these purchases go largely uncollected by
remote sellers due to a Supreme Court ruling that pre-dates the Internet. ``Sales taxes and other broad-based tax
regimes with fewer loopholes and lower rates are the least damaging taxes to state economies and state
employment. ``The

45 states with sales taxes could use the additional revenues from
the collection of taxes on remote sales already in the sales tax base to lower other
tax rates and reduce far more burdensome taxes . This more efficient system and lower taxes
would, in turn: Increase state prosperity and employment on a dollar-for-dollar basis resulting
in the following increases in gross state product (GSP) and state employment over a decade
based upon Internet sales as a percent of projected state retail sales in 2022.

Solves state budgets

The counterplan generates upwards of $45 billion in state
sales taxes
Laffler and Arduin 2013 (Arthur B [best known for the Laffler curve-- CoChairman of the Free-Enterprise Fund] and Donna [balanced budgets in a bunch of
states]; Pro-growth tax reform and e-fairness; Jul;
standwithmainstreet.com/ArtLafferStudy.pdf; kdf)
The state sales tax burden, i.e. sales tax revenues as a share of GDP (see Figure 3), has been concentrated on a
declining sales tax baseretail sales as a percentage of GDP (see Figure 3). Current purchasing trends (e.g. the
growing market share of Internet sales versus brick and mortar retail sales) will for sure continue if Internet sales
remain effectively tax exempt. Figure 4 shows the growth in e-commerces share of the retail trade as estimated by

while the sales tax base has been shrinking, ecommerce has been steadily growing. But clearly, factors other than e-commerce sales are at work as
the U.S. Census. Over the past 13 years,

well. E-commerce sales account for only a portion of the loss of taxable retail sales. Linearly projecting out the

by 2022, 8.6% of all retail trade sales will be conducted

via e-commerce, which is almost 60% larger than total sales a decade prior. Bruce et al.
current growth path of e-commerce,

have produced a series of papers that estimate state and local sales tax losses arising from e-commerce for the
District of Columbia and 45 states (remember there are five states without general state sales tax: Alaskawhich
does have local sales taxesOregon, Delaware, New Hampshire and Montana).ii Bruce et al. use both a baseline

annual
national, state, and local sales tax losses on e-commerce would grow to $11.4
billion by 2012 for a six-year cumulative loss of $52 billion. iii According to Forrester Research,
U.S. online retail sales grew 12.6% in 2010, reaching $176.2 billion. With an
expected 9.6% compound annual growth rate from 2010 to 2022, U.S. e-commerce is expected to
forecast and an optimistic forecast for e-commerce growth. In the baseline case, they estimate that

reach $530 billion in 2022.iv Second, our analysis of trends in online retailing confirms the Bruce et al. and Forrester
Research assessments, albeit at a lower 2012 estimate than the Bruce 2012 estimate. Retail sales over the Internet
represent a growing erosion of states sales tax base projected out through 2022 (see Figure 4). The basis for our
estimate is the U.S. Census E-Stats, which the U.S. Census uses to measure the electronic economy.v According to
the U.S. Census, back in 1998, Internet retail sales held a trivial share of total retail sales in the U.S. (around 0.2%).
However, as Figure 4 illustrated, this share has been growing rapidly. Furthermore, the growth in market share over
time has thus far very closely followed a linear growth pattern of around 0.35 percentage points per year.vi While a
constant percentage linear growth cant last forever, it sure fits well over the recent past. Some estimates are
predicting faster growth. The aforementioned Forrester Research estimates predict a faster 9.6% compound annual
growth rate, yet this is still not as fast as the growth in online sales may actually turn out to be. There is also
another estimate that we feel is both important and realistic. Since 2000, the U.S. has gone through a period of
decidedly bad economicstax increases, out-of-control government spending, regulatory overreach, damaged
trade relations and wildly expansive money creation. The consequence of these policy aberrations has been the
decade plus-long underperformance of the U.S. economy. With the political changes reflected in the states and
critical elections in 2014 and, of course, in 2016 as well, there is a significant possibility that the U.S. will return to
sound economic policies, and, as a result, economic growth will return to its pre-2000 rate. We will use a growth
rate of 3.5%, which reflects the growth between 1960 and 1999 (see Figure 1) as an alternative projection of retail

Total state taxable sales are estimated to be $4.3 trillion in

2012, based on quarterly data from the U.S. Census.vii Of these total sales, 5.2% (see Figure 4), or
$224.4 billion were categorized as e-commerce. In order to determine the lost state sales tax revenues
sales over the coming years.

through 2022 due to Internet taxable sales not being taxed, we need to estimate the total Internet retail sales
through 2022. We estimated the total U.S. Internet sales tax base between 2013 and 2022 using three different
methods that are summarized in Figure 5: `` The average growth rate in total taxable retail sales ($4.3 trillion)
between 2001 and 2010 (2.2% per year) coupled with the growth in the retail Internet market share of 0.35
percentage points per year (2022 number is 8.6%) yields taxable Internet retail sales in 2022 of $460 billion, ``
Forrester Research estimated 9.6% average growth in Internet sales applied to estimated Internet retail sales
through 2022, yielding additional taxable retail sales in 2022 of $560 billion, and `` An additional estimate based on
a return to prosperity being achieved in the U.S. economy over the period 2013 to 2022 (3.5% growth) yielding
$520 billion in additional retail sales in 2022. Based on current market trends and forecasts, we estimate that total
Internet retail sales will grow from $224.4 billion to a range of $460 billion to $560 billion by 2022. While these sales

are potentially subject to the state sales tax, the questions are (a) how many of these sales are intended to be part
of the sales tax base, i.e. do they or do they not fit into categories that are exempted even for in-state sales?; (b)
how many of these sales that are intended to be part of the sales tax base are not currently paying sales tax to the
government; and, (c) what proportion of these non-tax submitting taxable sales can be captured. There is also the
question of how these sales would change if their tax status changes. Third, according to a National Conference of
State Legislatures analysis, total uncollected taxes on goods and services sold via the Internet were $8.6 billion in
2010.ix Based on an average state sales tax rate (state sales tax revenues retail sales) of 5.81%, this equates to
a national non-taxed Internet sales tax base of $150 billion.x The $150 billion represents close to 100% of the total
estimated 2010 Internet retail sales base of $166 billion, based on the U.S. Census 2010 estimated Internet retail
sales base. As an aside, it should be noted that Internet sales are not the only category of remote sales leading to
the gap between theoretically taxable sales and actual sales taxes paid. It is often the case that non-electronic
sales between states also go untaxedremember our Dennis Kozlowski story on page four. In a study by Fox et
al.,xi estimated uncollected taxes on non-electronic sales add up to $11.9 billion for 2012 alone. Apportioning total
e-commerce sales to each state by its share of national retail sales, the estimated Internet sales tax base multiplied
by the appropriate state sales tax rate provides an estimate of revenues that each state can capture (see Figure 6.)
To state the obvious, the actual implementation of taxing Internet sales is far more complicated and less certain
than our estimates imply. Overall, in 2012 our estimates show that states are currently losing $13 billion in potential
sales tax revenues due to Internet retailers not collecting sales taxes on taxable sales. We estimate that these
losses will grow to between $27 billion and $33 billion by 2022 without corrective action. As mentioned, there is an
also enormous amount of taxes due, but not paid, on non-electronic remote sales. By our estimates of U.S. retail
sales growth, according to the 2001 to 2010 average growth and the 1960 to 1999 return to prosperity projections,

we are currently losing a total of $25 billion in potential sales tax revenue due to
both Internet retail sales taxes going uncollected and unpaid use taxes on nonelectronic remote sales. Without changes being made, we estimate total uncollected
sales taxes on e-commerce sales and non-electronic remote sales to grow to
between $41 and $47 billion by 2022 (Figure 7.)

Solves FISM
The counterplan solves the biggest internal link to federalism
economic cooperation
Laffler and Arduin 2013 (Arthur B [best known for the Laffler curve-- CoChairman of the Free-Enterprise Fund] and Donna [balanced budgets in a bunch of
states]; Pro-growth tax reform and e-fairness; Jul;
standwithmainstreet.com/ArtLafferStudy.pdf; kdf)
Many of our closest friends believe that treating all retail sales within a statewhether in-state or out-of-state, such as Internet
basedas part of the appropriate sales tax base constitutes an overall tax increase. It is clear from the data that the declining state
sales tax base, some of which comes from Internet sales, has not been a means to control government spending or taxes (Figure 2).
The chart below shows that states have increased taxes during the very time periods when non-taxed Internet sales were
expanding. Declining sales tax bases have been exerting constant pressure to raise marginal tax rates (see Figure 3). As Figure 3
illustrates, the total state sales tax base has been in decline for many years. However, the declining sales tax base has been more
than offset by rising sales tax rates (e.g. higher marginal tax rates), which have had the effect of increasing sales tax revenues as a
share of gross state product. In fact, based on our estimates of the states sales tax bases (retail sales as a percent of GDP), the
total state sales tax base is down 19.4% from 1970 to the present, while the average state sales tax rate (state sales tax revenue as
a percent of retail sales) has increased 40.7% over the same time period. In other words, states have been increasing the marginal
sales tax rate to offset the declining sales tax base and to increase total sales tax revenues to around 1.5% of gross state product.
Rising tax rates, whether at the federal or state level, are detrimental to national economic growth. With respect to the economic
impact of the e-fairness proposal, states should not use an expansion of the total sales tax base as an excuse to raise the overall tax
burden. In fact, as Figure 3 illustrates, the declining sales tax base has already encouraged larger percentage rises in the state sales
tax rates; consequently, the correct economic policy would be to expand the states sales tax bases, but reduce marginal tax rates
elsewhere to keep total state government revenues flat as a share of GSP. Simply put, fixing inequities in the tax system, through
such measures as broadening the tax base, should not be used to justify an expansion of the size of government. Opposition to
addressing the inequities inherent in Internet taxes has arisen because some states may use the problem of e-fairness as an excuse
to raise their states overall tax burden. However, the states do not need Washington D.C.s permission to change their tax rates.
Just look at recent tax increases in Illinois (an increase of the states income tax rate from 3% to 5% and an increase in the states
corporate income tax rate as well), Minnesota (new personal income tax bracket above $150,000 with a rate of 9.85% starting in
2014), California (Governor Jerry Browns new 13.3% top personal income tax rate retroactive to Jan 1, 2012 from Proposition 30),
New York (raised top income tax rates), Maryland (raised top income tax rates), Vermont, Massachusetts (Governor Deval Patrick has
proposed higher tax rates on high income earners) or Connecticut (raised top income tax rates) if you dont believe us. These states
know how to raise taxes, believe you me. Some statessuch as North Carolina, Kansas (cut the top state income tax rate from
6.45% to 4.9%), Oklahoma (will cut the top personal income tax rate from 5.25% to 5% effective 2015), and Ohio (which recently
repealed its estate tax),have been proposing pro-growth tax reforms. More importantly, governors in Wisconsin and Ohio recently
signed into law budgets that earmark all revenue from e-fairness legislation towards reducing income taxes in their state, a win-win
scenario.

Implementing different tax policies in different states is the essence of fiscal

federalismstates should have the power to experiment with alternative approaches
to fiscal policy. In other words, states should have the right to be wrong. The value of
fiscal federalism does not diminish simply because some states may implement
policies that are detrimental to economic growth, or in this case, use the need to address an inequity in
the application of the sales tax as an excuse to expand the size and scope of government. Additionally, mistakes at the
federal level should not be justified because states might exercise the
freedom of fiscal federalism and, in so doing, implement the right policy in the
wrong way. As we describe below, states are already using Internet sellers to collect sales taxes where the retailers have a
nexus in the state. Furthermore, costs have been an important justification for exempting out-of-state retailers. These costs have
declined significantly due to advances in technology. Legislation under consideration in Congress would lower the compliance costs

Due to the
declining costs of compliance coupled with the large economic consequences
created by the current Internet tax exemption, there is a strong case for out-of-state
retailers to collect the state sales taxes that are owed on purchases in the same
manner as local retailers.
further due to the requirement that states provide the necessary tax compliance software for Internet retailers.

at: Links to politics

The counterplan has bi-partisan support
Harrison 14 (JD; Online sales tax is back and this time, it might actually have
a shot at passing; Jul 21; www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-smallbusiness/online-sales-tax-is-back--and-this-time-it-might-actually-have-a-shot-atpassing/2014/07/17/ed056016-0dd0-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html; kdf)
When

the Senate passed legislation last year allowing states broader latitude to
collect sales on online purchases, the proposal was immediately cast aside in the
House and there is has remained, stuck on a shelf. Until now. Suddenly, even with the midterm
elections nearing, the bills supporters believe they have found the perfect
opportunity to try to push it through the lower chamber. The House last week easily
approved a bill dubbed the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act that would renew a
longstanding ban on taxing access to the Internet . Considered a must-pass proposal, the
legislation would prohibit state and local governments from charging residents fees to browse the Web. So far, the

A bipartisan group of senators last

week introduced what theyre calling the Marketplace and Internet Tax Fairness Act,
which couples an extension of the ban on access taxes with their online sales tax
proposal. In short, that second portion would grant states the authority to collect sales
taxes from out-of-state retailers who sell and ship products to consumers within
their borders. Currently, officials can only levy sales taxes on retailers who have a physical presence, be it a
bill has faced virtually no opposition. But that could soon change.

store or warehouse, in their states. Its an issue that has divided retailers based on how they sell their goods. Most
of those who sell via brick-and-mortar stores are lobbying hard for the bill, which they say would level the playing
field for all retailers. Those who sell their goods online, on the other hand, say they would struggle to monitor and
collect any number of the hundreds of local and state sales tax rates that exist across the country. House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has expressed the same concerns as that second camp, warning that
the Senate proposal would swing the advantage in the opposite direction by confront
ing online retailers with
tax compliance nightmares not suffered by their brick-and-mortar counterparts. He has thus far refused to take the
bill up for consideration in the House. So, in what appears to be a last-ditch effort to at least force a vote in the
opposite chamber, the senators behind the sales-tax legislation will be urging their colleagues not to send the
access-tax bill back without the sales-tax portion attached. Question is, will it work? Standing in their way will likely
be Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who authored the original Internet access legislation

Short of a change of heart from him,

the Senate Democratic leadership would have to be convinced to go against the
wishes of the committee in charge of online tax issues and move forward on the
combined package not impossible, but a tough sell. Should the Senate link the two
measures, though, lawmakers could be headed for yet another standoff , as the current
access-tax ban is scheduled to expire in November. That could force the House to decide between
allowing states to suddenly start taxing Web access and swallowing the pill on the
online sale tax legislation.
and has called that ban and online sales tax separate issues.

at: Common Objections

Common objections are hyperbolicleading expert
Wood 2013 (Robert W [practices law with Wood LLP, in San Francisco]; Online
Sales Tax Inevitable, Senate Passes Marketplace Fairness Act; Mar 23;
www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/03/23/online-sales-tax-inevitable-senatepasses-marketplace-fairness-act/; kdf)
They must collect sales tax from out-of-state customers only if they have a physical presence (store, warehouse or
office) in the customers state. Since then, a growing number of states are extending sales taxes to online retailers
with in-state sales affiliates. Amazon recently started collecting tax in Pennsylvania, Texas, California and
Connecticut and according to the Marketplace Fairness Act website, is now allied with supporters of the bill. eBay

Some of the claims about the law are hyperbolic . Opponents say it would
obliterate the physical presence standard , something they assert is a baseline protection shielding
taxpayers from harassment by out-of-state collectors. Its hard to support that claim , although theres no
question the law would help harmonize brick-and-mortar and online sales. Another claim is that the law
would force remote retailers to interrogate their customers about where they live, look up
regulations in thousands of taxing jurisdictions across the country, and then collect and remit taxes
for distant authorities. See Letter to Congress: Oppose the Marketplace Fairness Act! Of course, customers
already must state a delivery address, and credit card companies verify them too.
Opponents also invoke ultra-complexity, claim interstate commerce will be harmed, and say
opposes it.

online sellers will be burdened with 9,600 separate taxing jurisdictions, each with its own unique definitions,
holidays, and rates. They claim the law triggers a massive expansion in state tax collection authority, dismantling a
vital taxpayer protection upon which virtually all tax systems are based. Most of

this is at least overstated.

States Islamaphobia CP

**1nc
The fifty state governments of the United States should end
surveillance of the Muslim body.
States are currently implementing anti-Muslim policies
Khan and Beutel 14 - Co- Principal Investigator, ISPU Fellow and Lecturer in
the Department of Near Eastern and Asian Studies at Wayne State University, CoPrincipal Investigator and Project Manager for Islamophobia: A Threat to All Study,
ISPU Policy and Research Engagement Fellow Saeed Khan and Alejandro Beutel,
2014, Manufacturing Bigotry: A State-by-State Legislative Effort to Pushback
Against 2050 by Targeting Muslims and Other Minorities, 7/15/2015, \\BD
With regard to anti-sharia specifically, iv. 630 of the total 3813 (16.5%) Republican
state legislators have sponsored or co-sponsored an anti- sharia/anti-foreign law
bill. v. And 80% of the 102 anti-sharia bills were sponsored or co-sponsored by an
overlap legislator, or legislator who sponsored or co-sponsored a restrictive law in
another of the six issue areas. vi. It is critical to note that the greatest overlap with antisharia/anti-foreign law legislation is not with anti-immigration laws as might be
thought but with strict Voter ID laws and Right-to-Work laws. Both of these types of
laws negatively and disproportionately impact African-Americans, women and
Latinos. Thus, if a lawmaker wants to support legislation marginalizing the most people at one time, anti- sharia
along with Voter ID and/or Right-to-Work would help to achieve that end. vii. Although the linkage
between anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim advocacy is very strong, research indicates
that anti-immigration law proposals are limited in number because of the high
political and financial costs of implementing legislation that faces widespread
opposition from religious groups and business interests alike5 .

--xt: Solvency
State actions are creating a discursive policy of Islamophobia
Khan and Beutel 14 - Co- Principal Investigator, ISPU Fellow and Lecturer in
the Department of Near Eastern and Asian Studies at Wayne State University, CoPrincipal Investigator and Project Manager for Islamophobia: A Threat to All Study,
ISPU Policy and Research Engagement Fellow Saeed Khan and Alejandro Beutel,
2014, Manufacturing Bigotry: A State-by-State Legislative Effort to Pushback
Against 2050 by Targeting Muslims and Other Minorities, 7/15/2015, \\BD
The fact that anti-sharia/anti-foreign law bills, the legislative vehicle for antiMuslim sentiment, track more closely to Voter ID and Right-to-Work related bills than anti-immigration bills
lends credence to the idea that the current legislative agenda is about preserving
power. It also indicates that, despite the rhetoric around sharia, these legislative
efforts targeting foreign laws are actually branches of a wider domestic policy
initiative targeting the changing nature of America. Ultimately, the data supports the fact that
there is deep anxiety around the changing demographic nature of American society
and the approaching demographic tipping point . This is the wider domestic context in which of
anti- Muslim prejudice and animus operate. In the years since 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment has
been considered more socially acceptable6 than animus directed at other racial,
ethnic, or religious groups.7 Notwithstanding that American Muslims are increas- ingly working in
partnership with various communities on a growing array of public policy issues,8 the narratives to counter
Islamophobia have often been narrow, largely treat- ing the issue as its own isolated phenomenonwhether in-

While not seeking to downplay the unique challenges anti-Muslim

bigotry poses to American pluralism, the findings clearly suggest Islamophobia is
part of a broader trend of exclusion that various minority communities have
experienced, and continue to experience.
tentional or not.

State action is key

Khan and Beutel 14 - Co- Principal Investigator, ISPU Fellow and Lecturer in
the Department of Near Eastern and Asian Studies at Wayne State University, CoPrincipal Investigator and Project Manager for Islamophobia: A Threat to All Study,
ISPU Policy and Research Engagement Fellow Saeed Khan and Alejandro Beutel,
2014, Manufacturing Bigotry: A State-by-State Legislative Effort to Pushback
Against 2050 by Targeting Muslims and Other Minorities, 7/15/2015, \\BD
This brief summarizes ISPU research that identifies anti- 2050 resistance trends, and documents the link between
anti-Muslim activism and support for other forms of bigotry by analyzing state-level laws passed and bills proposed

ISPUs research offers docu- mented evidence, across

all 50 state legislatures, of the current lawmaking efforts, successful and unsuccessful to restrict or reverse the rights of various groups his- torically marginalized for
their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or religious
affiliation. This report also places Islamophobia within a broader context of
overlapping legislative cam- paigns that target or dispro- portionately impact the
above- mentioned communities.
on a number of key public policy issues.

at: Only Fed Does Surveillance

States surveil Muslims New York proves
Apuzzo 14 writer for the New York Times Matt Apuzzo, 4/15/2014, The New York
Times, New York Drops Unit That Spied on Muslims,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/police-unit-that-spied-on-muslims-isdisbanded.html, 7/15/2015, \\BD
The New York Police Department has abandoned a secretive program that
dispatched plainclothes detectives into Muslim neighborhoods to eavesdrop on
conversations and built detailed files on where people ate, prayed and shopped , the
department said. The decision by the nations largest police force to shutter the
controversial surveillance program represents the first sign that William J. Bratton,
the departments new commissioner, is backing away from some of the post-9/11
intelligence-gathering practices of his predecessor. The Police Departments tactics, which are
the subject of two federal lawsuits, drew criticism from civil rights groups and a senior official with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation who said they harmed national security by sowing mistrust for law enforcement in Muslim

To many Muslims, the squad, known as the Demographics Unit, was a

sign that the police viewed their every action with suspicion . The police mapped communities
communities.

inside and outside the city, logging where customers in traditional Islamic clothes ate meals and documenting their
lunch-counter conversations. The

Demographics Unit created psychological warfare in our

community, said Linda Sarsour, of the Arab American Association of New York. Those documents,
they showed where we live. Thats the cafe where I eat. Thats where I pray. Thats
where I buy my groceries. They were able to see their entire lives on those maps.
And it completely messed with the psyche of the community. Ms. Sarsour was one of
several advocates who met last Wednesday with Mr. Bratton and some of his senior staff members at Police
Headquarters. She and others in attendance said the departments new intelligence chief, John Miller, told them
that the police did not need to work covertly to find out where Muslims gather and indicated the department was
shutting the unit down. The Demographics Unit, which was renamed the Zone Assessment Unit in recent years,
has been largely inactive since Mr. Bratton took over in January, the departments chief spokesman, Stephen Davis,
said. The units detectives were recently reassigned, he said. Understanding

certain local
demographics can be a useful factor when assessing the threat information that
comes into New York City virtually on a daily basis, Mr. Davis said. In the future, we will gather
that information, if necessary, through direct contact between the police precincts and the representatives of the
communities they serve.

Space Debris CP

**EUSO CP
The United States federal government should provide funding
for the Extreme Universe Space Observatory.
EUSO is the most feasible way to eliminate space debris
The Economist 2015 (Char wars; Apr 25; www.economist.com/news/scienceand-technology/21649443-how-clean-up-space-shooting-down-bits-junk-char-wars;
kdf)
SPACE, as the late Douglas Adams pointed out, is very big. But the bit near Earth is also very crowded. Half a
century of rocket launches has turned the high frontier into a junkyard. Around 3,000 tonnes of empty rocket
stages, defunct satellites, astronauts toothbrushes and flecks of paint are thought to be in orbit. Besides being
messy, such debris can be dangerous. Anything circling Earth is moving pretty quickly, so collisions between space
junk and satellites can happen at closing velocities of 10km a second or more. Large bits of junk are routinely
tracked by radar. The International Space Station (ISS), for instance, regularly tweaks its orbit to avoid a particularly
menacing piece of litter. But at such high speeds, even a small, hard-to-follow object can do tremendous damage.

Rocket scientists have been pondering how to deal with this problem for years . But a
paper just published in Acta Astronautica by Toshikazu Ebisuzaki and his colleagues at RIKEN, a big
Japanese research institute, has gone further and proposed actually building a test device.
Like all the best ideas, Dr Ebisuzakis plan involves zapping things with lasers. He
proposes to point these lasers in the right direction using a telescope intended for a
different job entirely. This is the Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO). It is
designed to be bolted on to the ISS . From that vantage point it will monitor Earths atmosphere,
looking for showers of radiation caused by cosmic rays hitting air molecules. Dr Ebisuzaki, however, realised that
the characteristics of a telescope designed for this jobnamely a wide field of view and the ability to register even
fleeting flashes of lightwould also be well-suited for spotting small bits of debris as they whizz past the ISS.

Having identified something, the next step is to get it out of orbitand that is where the
zapping comes in. Shining a sufficiently powerful laser at something will boil away
its surface. The resulting jet of vapour will, as Newtons third law of motion requires, cause an
equal and opposite reaction on the object it came from, pushing that object away.
Fire a laser head-on at a piece of space debris for long enough, then, and you can slow it down to the point where
its orbit will decay and it will burn up in Earths atmosphere. This idea is not new. But putting lasers into orbit is
tricky. Those powerful enough to do the job need lots of electricity and this is hard to deliver with the solar panels
from which satellites typically draw their power. Dr Ebisuzaki proposes instead to employ a new, more efficient laser
called a coherent-amplification network device, which was developed for use in high-energy physics. He and his

The first, with a smaller version of the EUSO and a fairly

weedy laser, would serve as a proof of concept. The second would use the actual
EUSO telescope and a much more potent laser. Finally, he says, the equipment could
be mounted on a purpose-built satellite, from which it would be able to shoot down
tens of thousands of bits of space junk every year, thus gradually sweeping the
skies clean.
colleagues suggest a three-stage test.

--xt CP Solves
Funding is the critical internal link to EUSO success CP
resolves this
Lant 2015 (Karla; How the ISS Plan s of getting rid of space debris-plans to
vaporize comets in space; May 19;
www.sciencetimes.com/articles/6481/20150519/how-the-iss-plans-on-getting-rid-ofspace-debris-plans-to-vaporize-comets-in-space.htm; kdf)
The new Riken proposal, however, focuses on the Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO). Although
it was not designed for the purpose of obliterating space junk, the system, created for monitoring
ultraviolet emissions caused by cosmic rays, may solve this problem. Astrophysicist
Toshikazu Ebisuzaki says that use of the EUSO, which will be used on Japan's 2017 ISS module, is a good strategy. The laser
system uses a Coherent Amplification Network (CAN) laser, now under development for use in
atom smashers, to blast pieces of junk by vaporizing its surface. The CAN laser
generates a single, powerful beam by combining many small lasers together . This in turn
pushes the debris into the atmosphere with the plume of plasma created by the blast. The junk would then burn up in the
atmosphere. A 100,000-watt ultraviolet CAN laser, the full-scale version of this system, would have a range of about 60 miles .

It
would be able to fire about 10,000 pulses per second, each pulse of a one-tenth of
one-billionth of a second duration. This set of capabilities should be adequate to secure the ISS. The system's
laser would need lithium-ion batteries weighing about 17 pounds. "The EUSO telescope, which was originally designed to detect
cosmic rays, could also be put to use for this useful project," Ebisuzaki says. If the proof-of-concept and full-scale prototypes work,
the researchers propose that a satellite version of the system be produced solely for the purpose of blasting space junk. The satellite
would then orbit over both poles of the Earth. They believe it could zap about 100,000 pieces of space junk annually, one piece of

Most space junk is at an altitude of about 500 miles. The satellite

would start its orbit at about 620 miles and over time drift downward at about 6
miles per month until most troublesome junk was gone-in about 50 months' time.
"The biggest obstacle is funding," says Ebisuzaki. "There are some technical challenges, of course, but the
junk every five minutes.

main issue is getting funding for development and launch."

**Space Elevator CP
Counterplan: The United States federal government should build a space
elevator.
Solves Debris
Edwards and Ragan 6, (Bradley Edwards, Ph.D. in Physics from the University of
Wisconsin Madison, Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator)
One strategy is to avoid the areas of space with the highest density of debris. This is not as hard as it sounds. Each
of the main spaceports on Earth tends to launch rockets into the same orbits, so their debris follows that orbit too.
We

can track great circles of debris in space that originate from Cape Canaveral,
Baikonur, etc. Much debris follows the Equator, noting the number of satellites that
are lifted into geostationary orbit above the Equator. Therefore, by selecting an anchor point for
the Earth Port away from the Equator and common rocket orbits we will reduce the potential amount of debris that
our ribbon encounters. (Also, in the event that anyone still launches rockets anymore, we really don't want our

A more proactive strategy is to clean up the mess.

With our Elevator having reduced the cost of deploying into space, maybe we could
deploy a catcher-satellite, equivalent to a gigantic carbon nanotube garbage bag, to
orbit the Earth and gradually collect the debris.
ribbon cutting through the likely trajectory!)

Solves Asteroids/communication/weather/spacecol
Edwards and Raitt 4, Bradley Edwards, Ph.D. in Physics from the University of
Wisconsin Madison, David Raitt, Senior Technology Transfer Officer, Technology
Transfer & Promotion Office, European Space Agency, THE SPACE ELEVATOR:
ECONOMICS AND APPLICATIONS,
http://images.spaceref.com/docs/spaceelevator/iac-2004/iac-04iaa.3.8.3.09.raitt.pdf)
The Space Elevator will be capable of placing into various orbits, including LEO and
GEO and beyond, large payloads such as very long optical booms, huge radio
dishes, complex planetary probes, and manned modules including hotels and penal
colonies. It will be particularly suited to oversized, awkwardly-shaped and/or fragile structures and components
since there will be no restrictions on size (up to a point, of course), nor will the payloads be subject to launch forces.

spacecraft can be constructed more cheaply since delicate

components will not need to be protected against vibration to the same degree.
Examples of payloads and applications include telescopes, interplanetary spacecraft
and probes, Moon and Mars access, space tourism, power beaming, asteroid mining,
telecommunications, weather stations, and asteroid detection to mention but a few.
And no doubt the military will also be interested for its own activities.
This in turn implies that

Solves Warming
Edwards and Raitt 4, Bradley Edwards, Ph.D. in Physics from the University of
Wisconsin Madison, David Raitt, Senior Technology Transfer Officer, Technology
Transfer & Promotion Office, European Space Agency, THE SPACE ELEVATOR:
ECONOMICS AND APPLICATIONS,
http://images.spaceref.com/docs/spaceelevator/iac-2004/iac-04iaa.3.8.3.09.raitt.pdf)

One major use envisioned at the outset is that of launching solar energy platforms
which will collect the limitless energy of the sun and beam it down to Earth for a
constant source of clean, renewable power. This would have enormous implications
for the environment and sustainable development by cutting fossil fuel consumption
and thus eliminating harmful greenhouse gases. It would also avoid the necessity of
constructing tall solar towers which, of necessity, have huge ground footprints. The
solar tower under development in Australia, for instance, will have a collector nearly
6km in diameter and require over 50 square kilometers for the construction.
Solves Disease and Famine
Edwards and Raitt 4, Bradley Edwards, Ph.D. in Physics from the University of
Wisconsin Madison, David Raitt, Senior Technology Transfer Officer, Technology
Transfer & Promotion Office, European Space Agency, THE SPACE ELEVATOR:
ECONOMICS AND APPLICATIONS,
http://images.spaceref.com/docs/spaceelevator/iac-2004/iac-04iaa.3.8.3.09.raitt.pdf)
the Space Elevator could step in to fulfill the
promise of providing facilities to test and develop new drugs and materials in
microgravity. Specialist automated labs could be placed at various locations
adjoining the ribbon to create and manufacture components for the pharmaceutical
and electronics industries. Other labs could house space gardens to grow plants and
crops not only to develop improved varieties for terrestrial use, but also to provide food for people living and
In a period when the days of the ISS seem numbered,

working in space.

TTIP

**Econ
Test: The United States Congress should pass the Transatlantic
Trade Investment Partnership.
The CP Solves the global economydoesnt link to politics
Lejour, Mustili, Pelkmans, and Timini 14-

(Arjan Lejour is Programme Leader in Public Finance at

CPB Netherlands; Federica Mustilli is Researcher at CEPS; Jacques Pelkmans is Senior Fellow at CEPS and Professor
at the College of Europe; and Jacopo Timini is Researcher at CEPS. The views expressed in this report are those of
the authors only and do not necessarily represent those of CEPS or CPB Netherlands.) Economic Incentives for
Indirect TTIP Spillovers, No. 94 / October 2014 [TTIP Series No. 2], Center for European Policy Studies, 2014,
pdf,//droneofark

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations take place
between two of the three biggest economies in the world and over a very wide
spectrum of regulatory and trade policy domains . They cannot therefore be seen in isolation. One
major issue is whether TTIP engenders spillovers to third countries. This CEPS Special Report represents a first

TTIP, in setting
regulatory practices for the North Atlantic, which reduce costly regulatory
divergence, may apply on a MFN (most-favoured-nation) basis, or even that new TTIP
regulatory standards might be adopted by third countries, which thereby can
reduce the nontariff barriers (NTBs) for their exports to TTIP economies. Both imply
positive spillovers. Whilst there is some talk about spillovers from the regulatory accomplishments of TTIP to
attempt to understand the underlying economics of such spillovers. The idea is that

third countries, there seems to be no economic theory or analysis helping negotiators or observers to appreciate
the drivers behind such spillovers. The only simulation of the impact of TTIP that has incorporated positive spillovers
(Francois et al. 2013) does not offer any further insight in this respect; all it does is to stipulate an arbitrary size of
spillovers without any further explanation. Therefore, the present authors seek to provide some simple empirical

Even if the relative economic significance of

the EU and the US together in the world economy is shrinking steadily, in many
respects they undoubtedly remain preponderant economic powers: their joint size of
world goods trade is impressive (in 2013, the EU imported 196 billion in goods
from the US and exported 288 billion to the US), similarly in services trade (in
2012, the EU imported 149 billion and exported 160 billion) and their dominance
in foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks is overwhelming (in 2012, EU inward stocks
from the US amounted to 1.53 trillion while outward stocks to the US amounted to
1.65 trillion).1 This preponderance and their former leadership in the World Trade
Organization (WTO) bring with it a special responsibility when embarking upon TTIP.
A deep, comprehensive and ambitious FTA-plus over the North Atlantic should not
undermine or otherwise negatively affect the WTO and its signatories . This is not so much
economics to appreciate the incentives for spillovers.

a question of violating the rules (as the EU and the US can be expected to stick to WTO rules) but rather of the
regionalisation of new, especially regulatory, frameworks and the risks of generating new forms of trade diversion
that disadvantages third countries. Beyond a general but vague awareness, expressed in trade diplomacy, the
debate on the possible economic impact on third countries has hardly taken off. In particular, positive spillovers
remain at best speculative. Countries such as Turkey and Mexico have understood the danger and both the US and
the EU have opened or intensified their bilateral trade policy channels to keep these governments posted and

Given the preponderance of the US and the EU together, it is

therefore crucial that efforts are undertaken to reduce or pre-empt any such
negative effects and stimulate positive spillovers. This report has a modest purpose. It seeks to
reflect on further initiatives.

complement the empirical economic study underlying the Commissions Impact Assessment of TTIP (Francois et al.,
2013), which rightly introduces the possibility of TTIP generating (positive) spillovers for third countries, both
direct and indirect. The simulation by Francois et al. (op. cit.) without these spillovers results in small but non-trivial
negative effects on trade and GDP for the third countries included. These negative effects disappear or become

positive once the spillovers are included. However, Francois et al. (2013) do not explain or model these spillovers;
their size is merely (and arbitrarily) postulated as respectively 20% of the NTB reduction for direct spillovers and
10% for indirect ones. In our report on the Francois et al. (2013) study for the European Parliament Committee on
International Trade (INTA) (Pelkmans et al., 2014),2 we have already pointed out that spillovers should be far better
understood and that the incentives for third countries to align with TTIP and hence enjoy indirect spillovers ought to
be analysed. The present Special Report provides some elementary quantification, which helps understand the
incentives for third countries to seek either individual or (perhaps) plurilateral alignment with TTIPs regulatory
aspects where relevant, and for which TTIP should be open. The regulatory options and mechanisms which would
facilitate both direct and indirect spillovers to third countries have to be treated in another study. The following
focuses merely on rather aggregate economic incentives, not on the various modalities of regulatory cooperation in
TTIP. The structure of the present report is as follows: Section 2 defines spillovers more precisely and sets out how
spillovers have been quantified in Francois et al. (2013). Sections 3 and 4 propose a possible way to identify
potential spillovers for a specific country. In particular, Section 3 analyses which countries, divided into three
distinct groups, are most likely to be influenced by the negotiations according to the geographical trade pattern.
Section 4 sheds light on which are the most sensitive sectors in each country to this influence. Both sections take
advantage of the adoption of the global value chain approach. Section 5 concludes.

**Relations
Test: The United States Congress should pass the Transatlantic
Trade Investment Partnership.
The CP boosts US relations and soft powerSolves the aff
Hamilton and Quinlan, 15- (Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan are Director and Senior Fellow,
respectively, at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Transatlantic Relations, and co-authors of The Transatlantic
Economy 2015 (Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2007)) More than trade, TTIP leads to confident
Atlanticism Euractiv.com, March 18, 2015 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/trade-society/more-trade-ttip-leadsconfident-atlanticism-313006 //droneofark

The US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is generating more
heat than light when it comes to most European debates, which tend to cast TTIP as
yet another free trade agreement. Yet TTIP is about more than trade. It is about
creating a more strategic, dynamic and holistic US-EU rela tionship that is more
confident, more effective at engaging third countries and addressing regional and
global challenges, and better able to strengthen the ground rules of the
international order. To the extent that TTIP can help generate jobs, spark growth and
reinvigorate the US and European economies, it promises to renew confidence
among publics and elites and ameliorate some of the political dysfunction afflicting
many Western societies. Greater confidence and economic vigor at home, in turn,
has the potential to increase the magnetic pull of Western values elsewhere,
underwrites US and EU diplomatic capacity, and enhances possibilities for strategic
outreach. TTIP can also reassure each side of the Atlantic about each other. Europeans are more likely to have
greater faith in America's security commitments if they are anchored by strong trade and investment links . TTIP
would be an important US validation of EU legitimacy, while reassuring Americans
that the EU is looking outward rather than inward. TTIP can be an assertive, yet not
aggressive, means to defend and advance basic values shared across the Atlantic.
TTIP's fundaments are those of democratic societies rooted in respect for human rights and the rule of law. The
US and the EU are among the few entities that include basic labor, environmental
and consumer protections in their trade agreements. They boast the two most
sophisticated regulatory systems anywhere. An agreement that commits both parties to
sustain and uphold such principles and protections, not only vis-a-vis each other but together around the
world, would be a strong affirmation of common values and a powerful instrument
to ensure that such standards advance globally . Second, TTIP is important in terms of
how the transatlantic partners together might best relate to rising powers. Whether
those powers choose to challenge the current international order and its rules or
promote themselves within it depends significantly on how the US and Europe
engage, not only with them but also with each other. The stronger the bonds among core
democratic market economies, the better their chances of being able to engage rising
partners as responsible stakeholders in the international system. The looser or
weaker those bonds are, the greater the likelihood that rising powers will challenge
this order. TTIP has particular meaning for US and EU relations with China. TTIP is lazily portrayed as an effort to
confront and isolate China. Yet is less about containing China than about the terms and principles guiding China's

China's burgeoning trade with both the United

States and Europe attests to US and EU interest in engaging China, not isolating it.
integration and participation in the global order.

Yet Beijing has yet to embrace some basic tenets of the international rules-based
order. TTIP, TPP and related initiatives are important instruments to help frame
Beijing's choices -- by underscoring China's own interests in an open, stable
international system as well as the types of norms and standards necessary for such
a system to be sustained. TTIP is also important with regard to US and EU relations with Russia and
Eurasia. TTIP is a values-based, rules-based initiative that is likely to strengthen
Western economic and social cohesion, reinforce US commitment to Europe,
strengthen transatlantic energy ties, and contribute to greater attractiveness of the
Western model. TTIP would also bolster the resilience of central and east European
economies, stimulate US investment and enable such countries to more easily resist
Russian encroachment. These changes are likely to resonate across Wider Europe, especially Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia and even Belarus. This is anathema to the current leadership in the Kremlin. TTIP presents a huge
challenge to the Kremlin's efforts to divide Europeans from Americans. It offers something that the Kremlin cannot

transparent, mutually beneficial agreement that creates a rules-based

framework for international cooperation. A reinvigorated transatlantic marketplace
among highly-connected, highly-competitive democracies, whose people enjoy
greater economic growth and rising standards of living, would challenge the
Kremlin's version of ''managed democracy'' and render Russias own onedimensional natural-resource-based economic model unattractive. Greater US-EU
energy cooperation would blunt Russia's monopolistic approach to European energy
markets. And if such benefits extended to non-EU neighbors, particularly Ukraine, Russians themselves are likely
match: a

to ask why their own country can't be better run. Third, TTIP can help strengthen the international rules-based
order. Europeans and Americans share an interest in extending prosperity through multilateral trade liberalization.
But the Doha Round is stuck and the WTO system is under challenge. EU and US officials are using TTIP to unblock
the WTO Doha negotiations, jumpstart multilateral negotiations, and extend the multilateral system it to new areas.
TTIP could result in clearer, transparent rules of origin that could facilitate global trade and serve as a common
public good. It could pioneer new ways to ensure high standards for consumers, workers, companies and the

Without TTIP, Americans and

Europeans could become standard-takers rather than standard-makers. Getting a TTIP
deal will be tough. Yet if we grasp the moment, America's first Pacific President and his EU
partners may well become best known for having re-founded the Atlantic
Partnership. If we do not, then issues of failing trust and confidence, so visible
today, will continue to eat at the relationship like termites in the woodwork.
environment while sustaining the benefits of an open global economy.

--XT Solves Rx/at: Links to Politics

The CP solves relations better than the aff- doesnt link to
politics
Lejour, Mustili, Pelkmans, and Timini 14-

(Arjan Lejour is Programme Leader in Public Finance at

CPB Netherlands; Federica Mustilli is Researcher at CEPS; Jacques Pelkmans is Senior Fellow at CEPS and Professor
at the College of Europe; and Jacopo Timini is Researcher at CEPS. The views expressed in this report are those of
the authors only and do not necessarily represent those of CEPS or CPB Netherlands.) Economic Incentives for
Indirect TTIP Spillovers, No. 94 / October 2014 [TTIP Series No. 2], Center for European Policy Studies, 2014,
pdf,//droneofark

For present purposes, we focus solely on a more aggregate approach for trade
policy-makers and regulators of any country X having important economic
intercourse with the TTIP twins. The most obvious and important incentive is found
in mutual trade relations, possibly in combination with FDI stocks both ways. In the
following, we assume that the relative importance of aggregate goods trade with the TTIP
partners is a reasonable first proxy of a third countrys incentive to consider
alignment of its rules and regulatory practices on goods with TTIP . We focus on goods
trade, not services, because much of the regulatory cooperation in the High Level Group Report5 is about goods
trade. Before moving to the analysis of each sector, we first provide a general picture where we select candidates

The main
variable underlying trade incentives is the domestic value added embodied in the
foreign final demand as a percentage of the total value added produced by the
exporting country. The reason why we prefer this variable to the classical gross exports figures is explained
in Box 1. Countries have been clustered in three groups: first, we considered the socalled closest neighbours, including those countries already linked to the TTIP twin
through legal and deep commercial trade relations, namely NAFTA for the US, and
Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Turkey for the EU. Before inspecting the data, we expect a
strong interest from those countries in the negotiations induced by the existing
deep trade relations. A second group includes important commercial players according to their
relative contribution to global trade, namely: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of
Korea, South Africa (defined as the seven biggest traders, other than TTIP itself). 7 A
potentially interested in joining TTIP at a later stage or that can be influenced by its outcome.

third group consists of other developed open economies, namely, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong,
Israel and Chile, which, in the WTO, can never hope to be principal traders that assume leadership on regulatory
regimes, but are keen to benefit from effective market access to TTIP.8 The following simple exercise shows that

spillovers quite apart from their specific regulatory substance are incentivised far
more in NAFTA and in Europe with the EUs closest economic neighbours (Switzerland,
Iceland, Norway and Turkey) than in the second and third groups of world traders. Specifically, with Turkey,
Switzerland, Iceland and Norway the EU already has credible channels for regulatory
convergence and a lot of harmonisation and standardisation has already taken
place.9 In NAFTA, regulatory convergence used to be no more than marginal, but both Mexico and Canada now
have active Regulatory Councils with the US. Table 1 shows that closest neighbours have export
shares in terms of domestic value added embodied in the foreign final demand for
TTIP (in their world goods exports) ranging from 56% to 74%, which would seem to reflect
powerful incentives to seek effective forms of regulatory accommodation with TTIP.
There is no obvious basis to define a critical aggregate threshold beyond which a third country would be
incentivised or not; it is probably not a binary issue anyway. Indeed, an aggregate threshold might be inappropriate
as the practical approach for alignment will likely be sectoral, in combination with some broader regulatory

But 56% to 74% shares are so high that

one may speak of TTIP dominance in trade relations. If these trade shares are
cooperation principles and some institutional arrangements.

combined with the overall merchandise trade openness of countries, the TTIP
openness share is about 37%; only for Turkey is it much lower (22%).10 The latter result is not
surprising, because Turkey is also orientating itself towards the Middle East and former Soviet Union countries.

Often, trade openness is combined with strong relations in markets via FDI stocks
that further strengthen the impetus. This TTIP dominance is, in part, the result of
accomplished, deep market integration, underpinned by strong obligations of
negative integration and, depending on the case, some or even far-reaching
agreements on positive integration, especially regulatory ones (more in Europe than in
North America). In other words, regulatory and institutional relations inside NAFTA are
developing and, inside Europe, are already advanced, which should make it feasible
to find acceptable accommodation sooner or later, or even renders it conceivable
that TTIP would be extended in some chapters to the closest neighbours . The global
debate on spillovers might well be more focused on the second and third groups, which do not have anywhere near
the same depth in regulatory convergence in goods trade. Table 1 shows that the other developed countries score
TTIP shares of between 24% (Australia) and 57% (Israel). The overall TTIP openness varies from 8% (for Australia) to
138% (for Hong Kong). Concerning the group of the seven biggest commercial partners, TTIP shares vary from 31%
(Indonesia) to 49% (China), while the TTIP openness of Korea and South Africa more or less matches that of Turkey.
In particular for Brazil, India, Indonesia and Japan, it does not seem likely that their shares would give enough
incentive to initiate a process of domestic re-regulation for the purpose of effective market access only to TTIP. This
is also the case for Australia and New Zealand.

Warming (Carbon Taxes)

**Shadow Taxes CP
The United States federal government should establish a
committee to explore the feasibility of carbon shadow pricing
by the federal government.
The CP is the first step to solve warming
Morris 2015 (Adele [a senior fellow and the policy director for the Climate and
Energy Economics Project]; Why the federal government should shadow price
carbon; Jul 13; www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/07/13-carbonfootprint-governement-shadow-prive-morris?rssid=LatestFromBrookings; kdf)
One potential first step would be to establish an expert committee and/or
interagency process to explore the feasibility of carbon shadow pricing by the federal
government. The committee could examine which kinds of federal expenditures and operations are best suited
A First Step

to shadow pricing, and which sources of emissions (direct and indirect) could be reasonably priced. The

committee could review methods used by the private sector for possible application
in the federal government and consider which federal agencies , such as DOE, OMB, CBO,
and GSA, are in the best position to provide leadership for the endeavor. It would also think through potential

The
committee could also analyze options for how to set an appropriate shadow price
trajectory, such as whether the price should be tied to the social cost of carbon the
government uses for regulatory analysis or a path that minimizes the cost of
achieving a long term cumulative emissions goal. The committee could also propose metrics for
budget implications and how shadow pricing could be piloted or phased-in across the government.

monitoring the emissions performance of the policy and, potentially, identify more costly abatement measures the

the committee could suggest ways to

engage contractors, companies with carbon shadow pricing experience, and other
stakeholders in the process to amplify the broader benefits.
federal government could consider phasing out. Finally,

--xt Solves Warming

Federal government leadership is sufficient to spark large
scale carbon shadowing
Morris 2015 (Adele [a senior fellow and the policy director for the Climate and
Energy Economics Project]; Why the federal government should shadow price
carbon; Jul 13; www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/07/13-carbonfootprint-governement-shadow-prive-morris?rssid=LatestFromBrookings; kdf)
The U.S. federal government has two key leadership
opportunities here. First, the government could shadow price its own emissions in
ways analogous to those used by companies but customized to the particular needs of federal
agencies. For example, in analyzing energy efficiency retrofits to federal facilities, agencies could use
energy prices that take into account the carbon intensity of the fuels and electricity
involved, thus economizing on energy where the emissions benefits are highest.
This would help manage the federal governments fiscal risk as a major energy user,
harmonize abatement incentives across agencies, and rationalize federal investments across
competing objectives.[1] Second, the government could use the process by which it
develops its shadow pricing policy to catalyze an even broader public discussion.
Although hard to quantify, the spillover potential of the federal governments leadership
could be substantial as it would raise the profile of shadow pricing, provide practical
approaches that other entities can adopt, and further prove the principle that
carbon pricing can cost effectively reduce emissions . At the very least, the policy would
draw the attention of the firms that receive the over $500 billion in federal contracts
The Role for the Federal Government

annually. With thoughtful stakeholder outreach, the impact could be even broader.

This solves warming

Morris 2015 (Adele [a senior fellow and the policy director for the Climate and
Energy Economics Project]; Why the federal government should shadow price
carbon; Jul 13; www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/07/13-carbonfootprint-governement-shadow-prive-morris?rssid=LatestFromBrookings; kdf)
A growing number of companies are putting a shadow price on carbon to reduce
their carbon footprint cost effectively. Shadow pricing is method of investment or decision analysis
that adds a hypothetical surcharge to market prices for goods or services that involve significant carbon emissions
in their supply chain. For example, if a firm is analyzing acquisitions of new energy-using equipment, it would use
expected energy costs of expected market prices plus a charge associated with the carbon dioxide that would be
released when the fuel is combusted. Shadow prices can apply in all sorts of analyses of investments,
procurements, and other strategic decisions to give an edge to options that are more emissions-efficient, other

These decisions then allow firms to reduce their emissions gradually up to

the incremental cost reflected in the carbon price they apply. Why would companies do this?
Economists widely argue that imposing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, such
as through a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels, is a crucial measure to control
the growing risk of global climatic disruption . Carbon shadow pricing is an explicit
way to anticipate such future policies and avoid stranded or inefficiently allocated
capital. By analyzing capital expenditures and other important corporate plans with an eye to future regulatory or
tax conditions, firms can manage the economic risk of a carbon-constrained future and
assure shareholders and the SEC they are appropriately forward-thinking . This is
things equal.

particularly important for companies that invest in energy-intensive long-lived facilities such as power plants and oil

shadow pricing is a concrete way to signal to investors and the public

that a firm takes its commitment to climate change mitigation seriously. It can also
refineries. Second,

induce more consistently cost-effective abatement than alternative approaches such as targets for renewable
energy procurement or internal energy efficiency standards. A 2013 report by CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure
Project) identified over thirty companies including large electric utilities, major integrated energy companies,
technology companies, airlines, and more that set an internal price on greenhouse gas emissions associated with

standard approaches for carbon shadow pricing are emerging ,

but methodologies are not nearly as developed for shadow pricing as they are for
greenhouse gas emissions inventories . The price per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions that
their activities. Gradually,

firms apply ranges between about $6 to $60, and their approaches vary by year, scope of coverage, and pricing

Companies that wish to adopt shadow pricing have few public

examples of how to do it.
methodology.

**Carbon Taxes Revenue Neutral

Counterplan: The United States Federal Government should
institute a revenue-neutral tax on the carbon dioxide content
of fossil fuels, at a rising statutory rate based on the social
cost of carbon dioxide emissions.
A carbon tax is fair and guarantees a transition into a
sustainable economy
Reitze 2009 (Arnold W [Prof of Law @ U of Utah, prof emeritus of law @ George
Washington]; Federal Control of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: What are the Options;
kdf)
Coal is a mixture of various chemicals. A typical coal molecule is C[13]H[10]O. Gasoline also is a mixture of
hydrocarbons. Indoline is a common fuel and is expressed as C[7]H[13]. Natural gas is a mixture that may contain
ethane (CH[3]CH[3]), propane (CH[3] CH[2] CH[3]), butane (CH[3] CH[2] CH[2] CH[3]) or other similar gases. The
ratio of carbon to hydrogen bonds is about thirteen to ten for coal, seven to thirteen for gasoline, and two to five for
butane. Because coal has fewer hydrogen atoms per carbon atom than oil or natural gas, it produces more carbon
dioxide per Btu than the other fossil fuels. Because the carbon to hydrogen ratio varies among fuels, a carbon tax
should be imposed on natural gas, petroleum and coal in a ratio of approximately 0.6, 0.8 and 1 per Btu

a carbon tax would impact those who use coal far more than
users of petroleum or natural gas. To produce a kilowatt hour of electricity results, on average, in
respectively. This means that

emission of 0.57 lbs of carbon from coal, 0.54 lbs of carbon from petroleum, and 0.36 pounds of carbon from natural
gas. n129 The carbon from any fuel reacts with [*21] oxygen in the air in a three to eight ratio by weight. n130
Thus, for example, burning a gallon of gasoline weighing 6.32 pounds will release 5.47 pounds of carbon, which will
combine with oxygen to create a little over twenty pounds of CO[2]. In the United States we tax labor and savings,

Taxes should be imposed on activities we

wish to discourage, such as pollution and fossil energy use. The impact that carbon
taxes would have on the national economy depends primarily on how the revenues
from the tax are used, and what other taxes are affected. Taxes on GHGs could be developed that are
revenue neutral. The best approach would be to return the money collected equally to
every citizen. Those who purchased less than the average amount of energy would
benefit financially. Ultimately, the economic and environmental benefits of a pollution
tax are determined by how it is designed and implemented. n131 An ideal tax would be set
which are activities that we should seek to encourage.

at the lowest amount that modifies behavior but that does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on those
subject to the tax. n132 This may not be possible to accomplish. A carbon tax has advantages and disadvantages,

but its advantages make this approach a useful policy choice. n133 It would promote
fuel efficiency, provide a wide variety of opportunities for energy conservation, and
be "resilient and equitable" because its impacts would be diffuse , thus easing the
burdens on sensitive sectors of the economy such as the automobile and farming
industries. n134 A carbon tax would be less regressive than other energy taxes, such as a gasoline tax, because
the "wealthy consume a greater share of electricity and 'intermediate energy' from
manufactured goods than gasoline." n135 A tax on coal, petroleum and natural gas
would be shared more equally and generate the same revenue as a much larger
gasoline tax. The disadvantage of a carbon tax would be its disproportionate effect on the coal industry and
[*22] their customers because coal contains more carbon than other fossil fuels of equal heat values. n136 Coal is
produced domestically, and reducing its use would adversely impact the U.S. economy.

--xt Commitment Solves

The counterplan demonstrates maximum commitment only
solution to warming
Reeves 2015 (Richard [Senior fellow of Economic Studies @
Brookings]; Carbon taxes as commitment devices; Apr 14;
www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/14-carbontaxes-commitment-devices-reeves?
rssid=LatestFromBrookings; kdf)
The economic and environmental cases for a carbon tax are very strong. A carbon
tax could help to raise productivity in key sectors, as well as helping to reduce
emissions, as William Gale has pointed out on these pages and Adele Morris has argued in a series of papers.
Carbon taxes attract proponents from commentators on the political left and political right, but few expect to see a
national carbon tax anytime soon (indeed, the best hope may now be at the state or metro level). This is because

Climate change is an example of a myopic policy area,

requiring long-term decisions but vulnerable to short-term political pressures . Since
the short-term politics are difficult.

the costs of heating the planet will be incurred at some uncertain point in the future, the temptation to delay any
action is strong: especially when it involves short-term political pain. So the gas can gets kicked down the road. As
economist Alan Blinder puts it in Foreign Affairs: Myopia is a serious practical problem for democratic
governments because politics tends to produce short time horizons -- often extending only until the next election, if
not just the next public opinion poll. Politicians asked to weigh short-run costs against long-run benefits may
systematically shortchange the future. Energy and climate change policy is such a practical problem. It is also an
area where consistency and reliability in policy is substantively important, most obviously in terms of capital

one solution to the problem of

myopia is a policy commitment device, that binds policy-makers to a long-term
path. These devices include institutions (eg. the Fed, or the Base Closure and Realignment
Commissions) and the setting of goals (eg. withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2014). A key feature of
a policy commitment device is exit pain. Byran, Karlan and Nelson define a commitment device as,
allocation. As I argue in a new paper, Ulysses goes to Washington,

An arrangement entered into by an agent which restricts his or her future choice set by making certain choices
more expensive. What kind of policy commitment device could be deployed to reduce carbon emissions?
International agreements have been shown to be weak. There are a range of other contenders, ranging from a
carbon central bank, with power to set carbon emission levels; the passing of carbon budgets; carbon bonds;
cap and trade systems; targets for reduction of carbon emissions; or the establishment of independent agencies to
provide public advice to governments. Each implies a different degree of commitment; each also has their

The tighter commitment devices are beyond the wildest

dreams of the greenest U.S. campaigner; on the other hand, the weaker ones have
little traction. A carbon tax, in addition to its other attractions, could bring commitment
benefits. While politicians love to position themselves as anti-tax, history shows that once a tax is
established, it is highly unlikely to be abolished . The only way to get rid of a tax, and thereby lose
advantages and disadvantages.

the associated revenue, is to cut spending or raise taxes elsewhereeither of which carries some political cost.

There are two ways to further increase the commitment value of a carbon tax. First,
all revenues could be used to cut income taxshifting towards taxing what we
burn, not what we earn. If abolishing the tax meant increasing income tax, it would be more likely to
remain in place. Second, as Adele Morris and Aparna Mathur suggest, firms could be encouraged to
pay their carbon tax bills in advance, perhaps through the use of tradable tax compliance credits.
This would create a constituency with a vested interest in the maintenance of the
tax. In an ideal world, legislators and executives would work together to
consistently address long-term problems with sustainable policy solutionsand

voters would reward them for doing so. But like the rest of us politicians often discount tomorrow too
heavily. On an issue as important as the future of the planet, perhaps we can hope that they might
see the wisdom of greater commitment, and the deployment of a commitment
device.

--xt-> Clean Tech

Price guarantees from the CP causes renewable innovation
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 70;
kdf)

First, a carbon tax introduces a steadier price signal that would generally not be present in a capand-trade program. Tax levels and cap levels can both change, but both can be too lenient or too stringent. But all
other things being equal, a cap-and-trade program presents one extra source of price volatility: the fact that it is

Innovation in new alternative technologies will generally

require as stable a price as possible on carbon dioxide emissions . At least for riskaverse firms thinking of investing in innovations in, say, renewable energy , they will
only do so if the payback, or recoupment of the investment from savings from not paying for carbon
dioxide emissions (through either carbon taxes or for emission allowances), is sufficiently quick and
secure. All other things being equal, the shorter the payback period and the more certain
the payback, the more attractive is the investment. Risk-loving investors may be willing to invest when the
regulating a quantity, and not a price.

paybacks are volatile, but in general, investment dollars are more abundant for projects that yield a steadier stream
of benefits.

Carbon taxes lead to innovation

Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 72-3;
kdf)
A second reason that a carbon tax stimulates more innovation than a cap-and-trade program is that, over time,
innovation will reduce the price of allowances, and if innovation is successful enough it will cheapen the price of
allowances so that innovation will no longer be worthwhile. Firms innovate to reduce compliance costs, and they will
not do so if the marginal compliance cost savings are too small to pay for the innovation. Since innovation will
reduce the cost of emissions allowances, there comes a point eventually at which the marginal compliance cost

For carbon taxes, the marginal

compliance costs savings does not change unless the tax rate changes. In this way, a
steady tax rate produces a steadier price signal than a cap-and-trade program. Of course, both
savings the cost of allowances are outweighed by costs of innovation.

cap-and-trade programs and carbon tax programs contemplate increasing stringency over time. The 2009 Waxman-

Carbon tax programs would contemplate an

increasing price over time, to adjust for inflation and to track marginal damages
from carbon dioxide emissions, which are expected to increase over time. While both programs
Markey bill specified a declining cap on emissions.

contemplate a price that increases with time, only cap-and-trade programs have to fight the price-deflating effects
of innovation. There is a third and final reason, related to the second, that a carbon tax stimulates more innovation
than a cap-and-trade program, which is only true if a cap-and-trade program gives away allowances instead of
auctioning them. In a cap-and-trade program in which some entities are given allowances either on the basis of
historical emissions, or simply as a product of political horse-trading, as was the case under the Waxman-Markey bill
the incentives to innovate will be diluted because innovation reduces the value of those allowances. The free
allocation of allowances creates an asset in the hands of emit ters, something that does not happen under a tax
regime. The fact that innovation could reduce the value of that asset is a disincentive for cost-saving innovation.
113 It could still be, of course, that few innovations are truly great enough to significantly change the market for
compliance. In such cases, the private benefits of innovation from either technological invention or process
changes are probably still great enough to outweigh whatever diluting effects the innovation might have on the

some technological innovations could be so monumental that

the way that an industry thinks about compliance could fundamentally change , such
value of allowances. However,

Imagine a breakthrough for carbon emissions : for example,

a technological breakthrough in battery technology that could dramatically increase
energy storage capabilities, making all kinds of renewable technologies feasible, since location and
that allowance prices could plummet.

intermittency would no longer pose logistical obstacles to adoption. It seems safe to say that the coal-fired utilities,
which received 35 percent of the initial allocation of allowances (worth about $100 billion) under Waxman-Markey,
may not be quite as engaged in the development of such technology as it would be if, under a carbon tax regime, it
truly had to pay for every ton of CO 2 it emitted.

--xt Solves Volatility

A carbon tax solves volatility
Kerr 2010 (Alex Rice [Alex holds a J.D. from the University of Colorado School of Law (2009) and a B.A. from
Amherst College (2003) where he graduated magna cum laude]; Why we need a carbon tax; 34 Environs Envtl. L. &
Pol'y J. 69; kdf)
A carbon tax can maximize the objectives discussed above because it fosters experimentation and rewards
numerous solutions simultaneously. The exact method of implementing a carbon tax is the subject of a different
article. n123 There are many possibilities, such as an add-on tax or a revenue neutral tax. One important idea in

The tax
should be higher when oil prices drop and lower when prices rise. n124 Keeping the
price of oil at a stable, high price creates a consistent benchmark that new energy
sources can aim for in achieving price parity. n125 Such a system would dampen
the boom and bust volatility of innovation that drives investors away . n126 For example,
renewable energy exploded in the 1970s when oil prices skyrocketed. n127 Much of the solar and wind
technology being pursued today originated from the "70s energy crisis . That technology,
any approach is the imposition of a variable tax rate that fluctuates to keep the price of oil stable.

however, was largely shelved until recent record oil prices of $ 150 per barrel rekindled interest. n128 As if to prove
the point, a 2008 plunge in oil prices swiftly dampened the prospects of many renewable energy businesses. n129

The predictability of a carbon tax solves volatility

Hamilton 2011 (Sophia [Symposium Editor for Pepperdine's Journal for
Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law]; WHEN SCIENTIFIC PALMERS n1 MAKE
POLICY: THE IMPACT AND FUTURE OF CAP-AND-TRADE IN THE UNITED STATES; 4 J.
Bus. Entrepreneurship & L. 269; kdf)
Early in 2009, ExxonMobil's chief executive, Rex Tillerson ("Tillerson"), announced his support of a carbon tax
system that would aim to reduce carbon emissions as an alternative to a cap-and-trade system. n401

""A

carbon tax would be a more direct and transparent approach,'" Tillerson said. n402 This is because the cost
imposed on companies by the tax would be predictable. n403 Another notable supporter of a carbon tax, and
one of the most "high-profile spokesmen for the [*310] virtues of a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade program," n404
has been Peter Orszag ("Orszag"), the current Director of the Office of Management and Budget. n405 In a 2007
report to the U.S. House of Representatives discussing both the cap-and-trade system and a carbon tax, Orszag
stated that "a tax is generally the more efficient approach. " n406 He based this conclusion on
several factors. First, Orszag noted that studies indicated that over the next few decades "a well-designed tax

"[a] tax creates

relative certainty about the cost of emission reductions each year, because firms
will undertake such reductions until the cost of decreasing emissions by another ton
just equals the tax on an additional ton of emissions ." n408 A cap-and-trade program, by
would yield higher net benefits than a cap-and-trade approach." n407 This is partly because

contrast, reliably limits the quantity of carbon regardless of cost. n409 However, Orszag points out that, in terms of
the impact emission reductions have on the climate, "it does not matter greatly whether a given cut in emissions
occurs in one year or in the next." n410 Taking this into account, he points out that a ta x

would have an
"important advantage: it [would] allow[] emission reductions to take place in years
when they are relatively cheap." n411 Numerous factors, such as weather, level of
economic activity, and availability of low-carbon technologies, can affect the cost of
reducing emissions from year to year. n412 "By shifting emission-reduction efforts into years when
they are relatively less expensive, a tax can allow the same cumulative reduction to occur over many years at lower

a tax would
avoid potential volatility of allowance prices, a tax "could be less disruptive for
cost than can a cap-and-trade program with specified annual emission levels." n413 Also, because

affected companies." n414 It seems that even a small amount of savings and stability would appeal to
businesses and industries in the United States.

at: Renewables
Renewable energies are a trap within the cheap electricity
rationaleempirically ineffective
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 23-5;
kdf)
The trouble with so many plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that they fall into this trap again: that capital
is needed to spur growth in some way that is desirable, such as by supporting the development of clean coal
technology. As noted above, refined coal even qualifies for the renewable energy production tax credit, giving

36
Government subsidization of renewable energy technologies may seem more
desirable on the grounds that the few environmental costs are more than
outweighed by the prospects of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This , however, is
dangerously close to the cheap electricity rationale that sustained coal
development for such a long time. I n Spain, where the government embraced solar energy as an end
the phrase renewable energy an adventurous interpretation only lawyers could find sensible.

in and of itself, extremely generous government incentives created not only a national glut, but a worldwide glut for
solar panels. The New York Times reported that solar panel manufacturing plants in Spain began producing too
many solar panels and of poor quality, only to have the Spanish government belatedly learn that it could not afford
to sustain this subsidy. Spanish cities, towns, and local economies that sprouted up around the solar panel
manufacturing industry dried up overnight, leaving behind new forms of economic dislocation and hardship. 37 And

in the rush to boost renewable energy, not much has been said about the potential
environmental harms of these technologies. Not very much has been said about the
ecological side effects of wind energy, such as its effects on wildlife that may be
harmed by turbines, or the effects of solar photovoltaic energy (such as its effects on the desert biota or
the toxic materials generated by the semiconductor fabrication process), but these effects should have a fair
hearing over the course of time.

at: Renewables/Future Tech

The counterplan is comparatively better- only a risk the aff
locks in a bad tech
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 43-;
kdf)
that by supporting specific renewable energy technologies now,
we run the risk of effectively locking them in for decades , and perhaps missing the
chance to find renewable technologies with even smaller carbon or environmental
footprints. Wind turbines have an expected lifespan of twenty to twenty-five years, 38 solar
photovoltaic panels about the same. 39 Although these seem like environmentally and
economically sensible renewable energy technologies, what will be learned in the
next twenty or thirty years? Already, concentrated solar power has emerged as a possibly cheaper and
simpler alternative to the previously dominant solar technology, photovoltaic solar energy. 40 Environmental
organizations, oriented by their missions to get things done, have again fallen into the trap of
wedding themselves to certain technologies . Todays environmental savior may be
tomorrows environmental pariah, and the problem with mandating an expensive environmental
The overlooked danger is

technology is the economic irreversibility of capital expenditures. A recent technological mandate sought by some
environmental groups was Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology, a technology that gasifies coal so as
to be able to separate out the carbon for later capture and sequestration underground. The Natural Resource
Defense Council and other organizations sued the EPA to force it to require IGCC as part of any new coal-fired power
plant as part of its New Source Review program. 41 Failing to learn the past lessons of the New Source Review
program, the NRDC seemed to have overlooked the possibility that if coal-fired power plants with IGCC were
actually built, carbon dioxide emissions might be abated but better and environmentally cleaner opportunities to
reduce emissions would be lost for generations. Presuming that somehow we have identified the best greenhouse
gas reduction ideas is dangerous because we live with these decisions for the next twenty, thirty, or fifty years. It is
far less dangerous to spur growth by taxing that which is undesirable, than encouraging capital formation around
that which we think, at this time, is desirable. First, as argued above, some measures to reduce greenhouse gases
do not involve capital at all, but are simple measures to conserve energy and use it more efficiently .

No capital
formation is necessary for people to figure out how to drive less by bundling tasks,
carpooling, riding the bus, bicycling, or embracing any number of other ways to
reduce their transportation emissions. Second, if incentives are required to form capital
around a meritorious capital project that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, a
carbon tax, if it presents a stable enough of a price signal, provides the economic
stimulus for private capital to flow into those supposedly desirable areas. Underlying this
argument is the belief that private capital is at least as able to discern the value of investment as government.
Admittedly, at recent times private capital has been spectacularly and widely mistaken. But it is hard to believe that
government can actually do better than private capital over the long run in picking clean technologies. And finally,
as the climate change problem is one that will play itself out over the better part of a century, it is essential to

To the greatest extent possible,

greenhouse gas policy should not encourage the formation of expensive capital. To
the extent that it does, it guarantees some stickiness and some longevity that is
in part born of the difficulty of changing course.
maintain an open economy for innovation and for new technologies.

at: Subsidies
Carbon taxes are comparatively better than subsidies
-high energy costs->conservation
-subsidies take tax payer money, sends it to industry; cp recycles money
-aff -> rebound effect

Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 35-7;
kdf)
The case for government subsidization is, as a theoretical matter, straightforward. An unpriced externality like
carbon dioxide emissions can be remedied by either a positive price imposed by carbon taxes or by a negative price

lowering the carbon dioxide emissions from

the energy sector will require the development and deployment of renewable
energy technologies, then it would seem to make sense to provide government funding for wind, solar, and
created by subsidization. If we know, for example, that

other renewable energy technologies. This would be true whether the subsidy takes the form of a per-unit
production subsidy, or direct funding for research and development: either way, the goal is to lower costs and
concomitantly lower prices. Compare, then, the effects of taxing carbon and of subsidizing renewable energy. At the

raising the price of carbon-emitting energy has the same competitive effect
of lowering the price (through subsidies) of renewable energy. The net effect of
subsidizing renewable energy instead of pricing carbon is a transfer of money from
taxpayers to the entire energy industry to the renewable energy industry through subsidies, and to
margins,

the carbon-emitting energy industries by not taxing them. Since pricing carbon would raise energy prices, the net
effect on the average person, who is both a taxpayer and an energy consumer, would appear to be roughly a wash.
There are three core problems with this argument. First, and most simply ,

higher energy prices are

needed to spur energy conservation. Low energy costs undermine incentives to
make industrial processes more energy-efficient, drive less, better insulate homes
and construct more energy-efficient buildings, and to develop and sell (and buy) energyefficient appliances. Energy conservation measures may in fact turn out to be the greatest source of
greenhouse gas reductions. A recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey found that some fairly routine and wellknown energy conservation measures could produce a whopping $680 billion dollars worth of net energy savings,
and reduce projected energy demand by the year 2020 by 23 percent. 20 Many energy conservation measures
actually have a negative abatement cost that is, their energy savings exceeded the amortized cost of the upfront
investments. These included insulation retrofits for residential and commercial buildings (especially the latter),
switching residential lighting from incandescent bulbs to LEDs (light-emitting diodes), and capturing methane
escaping from landfills to generate electricity. 21 As Dieter Helm has observed, a problem with climate policy is that
it has by and large focused on reducing greenhouse gases from production, and not consumption. 22 Reducing
consumption does not sound like a good thing for love-starved politicians who have no stomach to curb energy

But the simple truth is

that efforts to combat climate change will be unsuccessful without steps to reduce
consumption. And there is nothing as effective as higher prices if the goal is to reduce consumption. Second,
there is a limit on how low energy prices can be made through subsidization.
Lowering the price of renewable energy lowers the demand for fossil fuels. But
lowering demand for fossil fuels means that it will lower the price of fossil fuels . A
lower price for fossil fuels encourages its use, exactly what we dont want. This rebound effect of
lowering fossil fuel prices by subsidizing its alternatives dampens the effectiveness
of subsidies in altering consumption choices. Rebound effects for various renewable fuel standards
consumption through taxation, even as we waste energy in mind-boggling ways.

policies in the United States are estimated to be on the order of a quarter to a third of reduced emissions. 23
Moreover, at a certain point, energy prices become so low that they become irrelevant. If, hypothetically, you had a
choice between buying electricity from a coal-fired plant for 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour or buying electricity from a
wind farm for 3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour, which would you chose? The answer could well be, who cares? For

many energy consumers, the savings does not justify the time needed to investigate. Such is the pushing-on-a-

So while higher taxes and

lower energy costs may seem to be a wash, they are not. Third, the effectiveness of government
subsidies assumes without justification in fact, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the
contrary that it is possible to identify the best renewable energy technologies, or in
general the best ideas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Too often, legislators think
string effect of trying to lower prices for everyone instead of raising them.

they catch wind of a great idea such a revolutionary way of doing something that they can hardly resist the
temptation to lend some assistance (all the better if the idea comes from a constituent or potential donor). It
requires a bit of gullibility to ignore the failure of these supposedly great ideas to attract sufficient private financing.
The danger is not so much in the waste of taxpayer dollars this is addressed in another part of this chapter but
that emissions reductions will be both smaller and costlier than if a better instrument was used. worth noting a few
instances in which subsidization may be option. Some greenhouse gas problems are genuinely difficult address
without a carrot (subsidy), rather than a stick (tax). For example, it is hard to imagine a regulatory scheme dealing
comprehensively and effectively with the prevention of deforestation, which accounted for 12 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. 24 How, for example, is anybody to stop the deforestation of the Amazon
rainforest by those that either legally or illegally have the ability to cut down trees? Where state enforcement of
illegal logging has been poor, the offer of periodic cash payments to private individuals to keep trees standing may
be more effective. In situations involving poor enforcement mechanisms most prominently in developing
countries the infusion of money may be required. In some developing countries, there is insufficient economic
wealth for markets to actually exist, so that market mechanisms do not create markets at all. Generally, however,
subsidization as a governmental policy on reducing greenhouse gases has not been targeted at developing
countries, or other situations in which subsidies genuinely work better.

Government subsidization has

been mere political grease, an overused salve for the perceived pain from the prospect of economic restructuring .

Rather than actually minimize the pain, however, it merely shifts it into onto unwitting
taxpayers, current and future. Government subsidization should be viewed with
skepticism, rather than being the presumptive first option.

Subsidies are a waste of money- nearly anything can be

considered a renewable energy
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 23-5;
kdf)
Finally, there is never any shortage of proposals that involve, to varying degrees of chutzpah, government subsidies
for various programs or projects that may or may not lower greenhouse gas emissions, but at least purport to do so.

In theory, government subsidies could accomplish the exact same things as carbon
taxes or cap-and-trade programs. While carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs seek to raise the price of all
things carbon, subsidies seek to lower the price of things noncarbon or lower-carbon. All
of these programs seek to address externalities costs that result from an action that are not fully taken into
account. Pollution externalities are thus the costs of pollution that the polluter does not fully consider when deciding
how much and how to produce.

By raising the price of carbon emissions, carbon taxes and cap-

and-trade programs seek to internalize the externality of carbon dioxide emissions the
contribution to climate change made by the emitter, be it a large industrial emitter as it makes decisions about
production, or by an individual as she decides whether to drive or take the bus to work. A carbon tax or a cap-andtrade program would raise the cost of emitting, inducing the industrial emitter to produce less or emit less, and
making driving more costly for the commuter.

A subsidy might internalize the externality by

rewarding the emitter for emitting less , or rewarding the commuter for taking the bus by reducing
her fare. On the blackboard, then, one might see taxes and subsidies as mirror images of the same price-oriented

subsidies raise a number of issues that make them much less

effective and much more costly than either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs. is worth
approach. In practice,

distinguishing between two kinds of government subsidies in the climate change context: price-oriented subsidies
and research and development funding. Price-oriented subsidies are commonly awarded to some renewable energy
sources. Certain specific renewable energies enjoy the benefit of a payment for every kilowatthour of electricity

generated. 17 Utilized in this way, subsidies really do internalize an externality generated by greenhouse gas
emission. Burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide is forgoing a marginal benefit in the form of the per-unit

offering a subsidy for

renewable energy requires a definition of renewable energy. In the Internal Revenue Code,
subsidy. Two things are worth noticing about this kind of subsidy, however. First,

the production tax credit applies to certain renewable resources, (emphasis added) which includes refined coal,
which must be certified by the emitter as producing a qualified emission reduction. 18 It excludes many other
renewable energy technologies that have not yet been discovered or been recognized by lawmakers as having
economic or environmental potential. Second, the subsidy does not necessarily scale with the environmental harm
prevented, like a carbon tax does. A renewable energy subsidy helps all renewable energy sources as against any
energy source not on the list of recognized renewable resources. Thus, it provides a comparative advantage as
against all fossil fuel sources, without discriminating carbon-intensive coal and much less carbon-intensive natural
gas are disadvantaged equally. In fact, depending on how refined coal is treated, an electricity producer could

A second kind of subsidy in the climate

change context is direct government support of research and development,
including the funding of pilot projects and prototypes . The subsidized projects are believed, in
the long run, to help lower emissions. For example, a great deal of attention and government
support is currently offered for development of carbon capture and sequestration
technology, which seeks to suck out the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion
(mostly coal) at some stage, and store it in leakproof containers or underground
caverns, where it will not affect the Earths climate . This type of subsidy seeks to address the
receive a subsidy for burning coal instead of natural gas.

public benefits of research and development, boosting activity because it may produce knowledge and discoveries
in a market that does not fully reward such pursuits. It also recognizes that research and development with respect
to low-carbon technologies is doubly under-supplied since, in the absence of a carbon price, markets do not yet fully
reward the development of lowcarbon technologies. An almost uncountable number of other seemingly greenhouse
gas-reducing programs, initiatives, projects, and research ideas also vie for public monies. Subsidies take on a very
wide variety of forms, and are difficult to define. Even the US federal home mortgage interest deduction is a
subsidy. In this book, however, a government subsidy is defined as a policy with two characteristics: an explicit
reference to carbon dioxide or another greenhouse gas, and an explicit reference to government funds. In other
words, the definition of subsidies is limited to those with relatively direct price tags.

at: CCS
The plan is a last-ditch effort to save the coal industry, the
counterplan is comparatively better
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 56-;
kdf)
the United States and Canada appear headed down this treacherous path again.
Another impending and potentially misguided government initiative is the
subsidization of carbon capture and storage technology. Carbon capture refers to the
Both

capture of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of any combustion process, while storage refers to the permanent
containment of the carbon dioxide, so that it does not enter the atmosphere and contribute to climate change.
Carbon dioxide would typically be injected into underground pore spaces where it would be stored for, it is hoped,

While the carbon capture and storage concept may be applied to all industrial
combustion processes (and even for some noncombustion carbonemitting processes), most of the
discussion and technological development has been for coal-fired power plants. The
technology seems attractive, salvaging trillions of dollars of capital worldwide
wrapped up in fuel combustion, and what enthusiastic policy wonks would call a potential gameeternity.

changer. Some have likened the urgency of developing carbon capture and storage to the development of the
atomic bomb. In a 2009 floor speech, US Senator Lamar Alexander said we should launch another mini-Manhattan
Project and reserve a Nobel Prize for the scientist who can get rid of the carbon from existing coal plants, because

lofty rhetoric seems misplaced for a technology that

remains prohibitively expensive. As recently as 2008, demonstration costs remained in
the range of 60 to 90 Euros per ton of CO 2 stored (approximately 88 to 131 US dollars per ton 64 ),
but were expected to come down to about 30 to 45 Euros per ton by 2030 (approximately $45 to
$62 per ton, using a 2010 currency conversion) . 65 Even if this bears out, this would still be much
coal provides half our energy. 63 But the

more expensive than many dozens of other emissions abatement and reduction strategies, even notoriously
expensive nuclear power. 66 Moreover, the physical challenge of capturing and storing even a modest amount of
American carbon emissions is staggering. The United States currently emits around 1.5 billion tons per year of
carbon from coal-fired power plants, 67 and the worlds largest sequestration project, at the Sleipner gas field in the
North Sea, is sequestering 1 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, or about 0.06 percent of United States emissions.

If carbon capture and storage were to capture all of the carbon dioxide from US
coal-fired power plants, the total weight that would need to be transported would
equal three times the annual volume of natural gas transported in the United States
by pipeline. Dr. Joan Brennecke, director of the Notre Dame Energy Center where researchers have been
68

working on carbon capture and storage technology for years under DOE grants, laments that despite recent
advances, economical carbon capture technology is still at least a decade away from commercial application,

2 It is surely telling that an

industry consortium formed to pursue and support a pilot carbon capture and
storage project, FutureGen, lost two of its biggest industry backers, the two largest electricity providers in the
remarking that no matter what, it is going to be painful to do CO capture. 69

United States: the American Electric Power Company and the Southern Company, in the face of the high costs of
development. 70 Given these challenges and setbacks, it seems slightly overenthusiastic to call for another
Manhattan project for such an expensive technique, and one that has been studied for decades with disappointing
results. Once again, an expensive idea has emerged from the convergence of politics, rent-seeking, and the
convenient illusion that government can provide (i.e., fund) a solution. Not all of the motivation is scandalous: the
temptation for such an important problem is to see the greenhouse gas reduction effort as a war, in which carbon
capture and sequestration can be a game-changer in much the same way that the atomic bomb was perceived to
be the game-changer needed to stop the Axis powers. Wishful thinking creates a desire to find gamechangers.
Recent technologies labeled as game-changers include: electric vehicle batteries, 71 electricity storage technology
generally, 72 shale gas, 73 small nuclear reactors, 74 nuclear reactors that burn spent fuel, 75 underground coal
combustion, 76 ocean thermal power, 77 a transmission line linkage, 78 and General Motors plug-in hybrid vehicle.
79 Some of these could actually be significant breakthroughs. But most often,

politicians proposing

technology subsidies for speculative technologies seems more like the

behavior of the destitute and desperate, sadly spending their last dollars
on lottery tickets instead of undertaking the hard work of change. Nothing
insulates a polity from its governments appetite for waste and profligacy, not even carbon taxes . But at least
spending money is not the point of a carbon tax, as it is with a government subsidy .
Indeed, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then a policy instrument should draw on what
government does well tax rather than on what it does poorly make strategic market decisions. With a
worrying problem such as climate change, it is too easy and too dangerous to fall into the trap of thinking that
governments can fix the problem directly, funding a potential home run or gamechanger. 80 It is harder to
create the markets that will spur development of a solution, harder to trust markets, and hardest still to tell voters
that they have to help pay for the solution through higher prices.

The plan is a move by politicians to take advantage of the

cognitive dissonance of the public
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 179;
kdf)
People are conflicted about what to do about climate change. On the one hand, a solid majority of people, even
Canadians and Americans, favor action on climate change. 61 Even though the public continues to trail scientists
and probably even politicians in their understanding of climate change, they seem to have an intuitive
understanding that catastrophic things could happen if greenhouse gases continue to increase, and that avoiding
this risk would be good policy. 62 On the other hand,

climate change is usually trumped by other

issues, most prominently economic ones, when people are asked to rank them in
importance. 63 So how does one reconcile these two somewhat contradictory public positions? The path of
least cognitive dissonance is to be in favor of some grand-sounding, and yet not
obviously painful measures to address climate change . Hence, there is appeal to
launching a Manhattan Project to perfect carbon capture and storage, or the
government launch of a hydrogen fuel cell automobile project, or a supposedly economy-wide cap-and-trade
program that covers all polluters. These all sound grand enough to match the size of the climate change problem,

Politicians that stand to

gain political support from proposing climate policy are happy to nurture these
misperceptions, and public opinion polls unwittingly assist them by supplying survey
results that perpetuate these misperceptions.
and yet do not obviously cost the taxpayer, the consumer, or the voter anything.

at: Geoengineering
Geoengineering fails- only a carbon tax solves
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p14-15;
kdf)
Finally, excluded from consideration in this book are adaptation and geo-engineering measures. Adaptation is the
general term for a wide range of things that can be done by a country to prepare for and adjust to life in a climatechanged world, at least as it can best be foreseen. Adaptation could include, for example, relocation of populations
away from areas vulnerable to tropical storms, or the genetic modification of seeds to yield more drought-resistant
crops, or the construction of sea walls to protect a city from the intruding sea .

Geo-engineering measures
aim to directly reduce the heat-increasing effects of greenhouse gases, by either
reducing atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases or by reducing the
amount of solar radiation that is absorbed. Like adaptation, geo-engineering
consciously does not address the sources of the greenhouse gases.
Proposed geo-engineering measures have included the promotion of
ocean algal growth (which would in theory capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), the launching of
tiny particlesized mirrors into the upper stratosphere so as to reflect sunlight and prevent it from reaching the
Earth, and simply painting roofs white so as to reflect sunlight more effectively and increase the amount of heat
that is radiated back out into space. As I have noted in my other work, adaptation and geo-engineering, despite
their own significant risks, begin to look like more palatable options as international climate negotiations continue
to founder. 2 The problem of international coordination among countries (which I argue in this book is best
addressed by a carbon tax) currently seems challenging enough to warrant some diversification of approaches to
climate change. While the international legal community balks at the unilateralism inherent in adaptation and geoengineering as a climate strategy, options that do not require global and crosscultural politicking begin to look
attractive. Moreover, the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change are such that a portfolio of policies is
likely required. 3 All that said,

it is most sensible from the perspective of greenhouse gas

mitigation to cabin off these kinds of strategies from the question of how to reduce
emissions. It is complicated enough to consider what mitigation policies should be
pursued, without complicating the question by adding in analysis of adaptation and
geo-engineering measures. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I consider four main options: (1) a
carbon tax (2) traditional environmental regulation, sometimes referred to as command-and-control regulation,
(3) cap-andtrade programs in which allowances to emit are allocated and freely traded, and (4) government
subsidies targeted at low-carbon technologies and processes. Again, many other ideas and combinations of ideas
are a part of the wide climate change discourse, but in order to focus in on the advantages and disadvantages of
the carbon tax as a fundamental approach, this book frames the discussion in the context of the main alternative
policy approaches.

at: Australia Failed

The Australian carbon tax was effective statistics prove McDonnell 15, (Tim, associate producer for Climate Desk, Even
climate villain Australia might be thinking about cleaning up its act,
http://grist.org/climate-energy/even-climate-villain-australia-might-bethinking-about-cleaning-up-its-act/)
a year ago, Australia made a very different kind of climate announcement: It became the
worlds first country to repeal a price on carbon. Back in 2012, after several years of heated
Almost

political debate, Australias parliament had voted to impose a fixed tax on carbon pollution for the countrys several
hundred worst polluters. The basic idea as with all carbon-pricing systems, from California to the European Union
is that putting a price on carbon emissions encourages power plants, factories, and other major sources to clean

Most environmental economists agree that a carbon price would be the fastest
way to dramatically slash emissions, and that hypothesis is supported by a number
of case studies from around the world British Columbia is a classic success story .
up.

(President Obama backed a national carbon price for the U.S. in the form of a cap-and-trade system in 2009,
but it was quashed in the Senate.) In Australia, the carbon tax quickly became unpopular with most voters, who
blamed it for high energy prices and the countrys sluggish recovery from the 2008 global recession. Abbott rose to

new data
from the Australian Department of the Environment reveal that whether or not you
liked the carbon tax, it absolutely worked to slash carbon emissions. And in the first
quarter without the tax, emissions jumped for the first time since prior to the global
financial crisis. The new data quantified greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector (which accounts
power in part based on his pledge to get rid of the law. In July 2014, he succeeded in repealing it. Now,

for about a third of total emissions, the largest single share) in the quarter from July to September 2014. As the

emissions in that same quarter dropped by about 7.5 percent after

the carbon tax was imposed, and jumped 4.7 percent after it was repealed : oz-carbonchart below shows,

emissions4. Its especially important to note that the jump came in the context of an overall decline in electricity
consumption, as Australian climate economist Frank Jotzo explained to the Sydney Morning Herald: Frank Jotzo, an
associate professor at the Australian National Universitys Crawford School, said electricity demand was falling in

any rise in emissions from the sector showed how supply was reverting
to dirtier energy sources. You had a step down in the emission intensity in power
stations from the carbon price and now you have a step back up , Professor Jotzo said.
[Jotzo] estimated fossil fuel power plants with 4.4 gigawatts of capacity were taken offline
during the carbon tax years. About one-third of that total, or 1.5 gigawatts, had
since been switched back on.
the economy, so

British Columbia proves carbon taxes are effective

Roberts 15, (David, What we can learn from British Columbias carbon
tax, http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-we-can-learn-from-britishcolumbias-carbon-tax/)
of British Columbia has had a carbon tax. It is, on its
own terms, a resounding success carbon emissions are falling even as the
economy continues to grow. Not only is it effective, but it is, from a policy
standpoint, incredibly elegant: It is predictable , rising according to a set schedule (though it
For seven years, the Canadian province

topped out in 2012 more on that later). It is broad, covering 70 percent of the provinces emissions. It is simple,

levied on a relatively small number of fossil fuel extractors and importers,

piggybacking on an existing tax, thus requiring almost no additional administration or enforcement
resources. It is revenue-neutral, offset entirely by cuts to other taxes, mainly corporate

and personal income. (In fact, each year the B.C. government publishes a table showing what tax cuts were
enabled by the carbon tax.)

at: International Trade

Carbon taxes wont cause a trade disputeEVEN IF it does, its
worth the costs
Meltzer 2014 (Joshua [Fellow in Global Economy and Development, Brookings
Institution, and adjunct professor at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced
International Studies]; A CARBON TAX AS A DRIVER OF GREEN TECHNOLOGY
INNOVATION AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE; ENERGY LAW
JOURNAL [Vol. 35:45]; kdf)
The United States should introduce a carbon tax. This would be a means to raise
revenues to address the fiscal deficit and complement bipartisan efforts to
incentivize innovation in the green technology sector in an effort to reduce CO2
emissions. In fact, U.S. capacity on the innovation front could end up being the greatest contribution the United
States makes to reducing global CO2 emissions. Should the United States succeed in pricing carbon, a range of

Some of these are positive as they reinforce the need for

liberalized trade as a driver of innovation and the production of cheap green
technology. 178 For instance, a carbon price in the United States would send a strong
market signal that there are commercial opportunities in finding cost-effective ways
to reducing CO2 emissions, whether through incremental improvements in energy efficiency or the
international trade issues will arise.

development of breakthrough technologies which change the energy paradigm. Maximizing this signal will require
an international system that promotes international scientific collaboration but also facilitates the free flow of

the United States could

expect to be a significant beneficiary , not only from reduced CO2 emissions but also as
the worlds talent migrates to places like Silicon Valley to produce another high-tech
sector in clean energy technologies. Currently, there is also significant government involvement in the
people, ideas, and capital to countries where they can be best used. In this world,

clean energy space, and this is likely to continue for some time. This involvement has raised a range of trade
concerns and in a number of instances has been challenged at the WTO.179 Balancing efforts to stimulate green

There is
no reason climate change needs to be tackled at the expense of liberalized trade,
an outcome which would make developed countries and in particular developing
countries significantly worse off. This is particularly true in the Asia-Pacific region that is deeply
enmeshed in global supply chains.180 Ensuring that government support is developed in ways
that are WTO consistent will leave governments with plenty of room to promote
ambitious climate change action but in ways that do not discriminate against goods
and services based on their country of origin. Moreover, as outlined above, climate change
policies that are also WTO consistent will lead to the production of green
technologies at lower costs. That said, the global impact of climate change suggests
that there is need for negotiation to ensure that the WTO rules do not raise
unnecessary legal risks for government when considering how best to act. A carbon tax
technologies with the gains from an open trading system based on WTO rules is an ongoing challenge.

in the United States will also inevitably raise domestic concerns about carbon leakage and the impact on the
competitiveness of U.S. industry.181 These concerns were prominent during the debate in 2009 and 2010 over a
cap and trade system, and there is no reason to think that similar concerns would not be raised by a carbon tax.182
Addressing these concerns will likely lead to some form of border tax adjustment. This will raise trade tensions that
will need to be navigated. And resolving these issues through negotiation rather than WTO dispute settlement is the

respects, what the United States does will be central to how the
development of green technologies and trade proceeds. As the worlds largest
economy with an unrivalled capacity for innovation and R&D, should the United
States price carbon, how this incentivizes clean technology R&D and manages the
preferred path. In many

implications for international trade will largely define whether the climate change
and trade regimes are mutually supportive or are developed at the expense of each
other.

at: Other countries

The inaction other countries does not justify inaction by the
U.S.
Carbon Tax Center 2012 (Jun 29; http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/;
kdf) Chinas leap-frogging the U.S. as the Worlds #1 annual carbon emitter is being
cited to defend American inaction on carbon reductions. This stance ignores several
central points.
the U.S. will continue to be the worlds biggest contributor to global
climate change long after China, or even India, surpasses us in annual emissions. Thats because carbon
dioxide molecules, once emitted, remain resident in the atmosphere for
approximately a century. Considering the many decades in which Americas carbon emissions dwarfed
For one thing,

everyone elses, of the CO2 now warming Earth, more than three times as much is the product of American
emissions as Chinese emissions. Based on present trends, the earliest that China will surpass the United States as

the United
States will continue to dump the most CO2 into the atmosphere on a per capita
basis for years to come. The average American is responsible for creating as much CO2 in a day as do
people in developing countries in a week. Third, just as corporations here use Chinas inaction on
carbon to justify U.S. inaction, so too are industry and government in China using
our temporizing on carbon to rationalize theirs. The way out of this alliance of
denial, as The New York Times terms it, is to stop delaying and start acting. Breaking
the leading source of CO2 is mid-century, i.e., around 2050. (See Slideshow, slide #8.) Second,

this cycle should be easier for the United States, insofar as our per capita use of energy (and emissions of carbon) is
many times greater than Chinas, and given our well-developed political and administrative institutions. Last, while

it is
equally true that every action that reduces carbon emissions helps protect and
stabilize climate. The injunction that the perfect must not become the enemy of the good has never been so
it is true that only concerted action by all the worlds nations and peoples can meet the climate crisis head-on,

apt as it is here and now, in Earths climate emergency.

If the US doesnt take the lead no one else will

Pascual and Zambetakis 2010 (Carlos [US Ambassador to Mexico, Served as VP
of foreign policy @ Brookings] and Evie [Brookings]; The Geopolitics of Energy: From
Security to Survival; Energy Security; 26-27; kdf)
the United States has the capacity to play a pivotal role. China and
India will not move toward more proactive domestic policies if the United States
does not set the example. Along with Europe and Japan, the United States has the capacity to demonstrate that
Among these groups,

green technology and conservation can be compatible with growth and a foreign policy that is more independent of energy
suppliers. The

United States also stands to benefit from accelerated commercialization

of green technologies and the development of global markets in energy-efficient
and clean energy technologies. The ability of the United States to lead, however, will
depend on domestic action-on whether it will undertake on a national basis a
systematic strategy to price carbon and curb emissions . If it does the scale and importance of the
U.S. market can be a driver for global change. If it fails to act, then the United States will find that
over time the opportunity for leadership to curb climate change will be replaced by
the need for crisis management as localized wars, migration, poverty, and
humanitarian catastrophes increasingly absorb international attention and
resources. Eventually, its failure to act will come back to U.S. borders in a way that will
make the Katrina disaster seem relatively tame.

at: Leakage/Cp->Intl coop

Only carbon taxes create international coordination
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 93-4;
kdf)
In terms of international coordination, carbon taxes provide an advantage over cap-and-trade in three subtle ways.
First, if a country legislates a cap-and-trade program expecting it to be incorporated into an international cap-andtrade program such as that contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol, it cannot realistically expect developing countries,
most notably China and India, to join such an international cap-andtrade program. China and India have thus far

China and India are likely to be

more open to a carbon tax that does not smack of a mandate externally imposed by
wealthy countries. Moreover, for a carbon tax, governments get to keep the proceeds.
signaled an utter refusal to consider quantitative limits on emissions.

Second, along similar lines, cap-and-trade programs that have been implemented thus far have included offsets,

Since
offsets provide a means for capital flow from developed countries to developing
countries, joining an international accord would carry with it the added
disadvantage (in addition to the costs) of giving up this source of foreign capital .
Finally, under international trade law, a carbon tax will provide a stronger basis for levying
import and export adjustments when a country that reduces carbon dioxide
emissions trades with a country that doesnt. I expand on these reasons below. First, cap-and-trade
which have the perverse incentive of discouraging international participation in greenhouse gas reduction.

has simply not been an acceptable concept to developing countries. China, in particular, has been very specific
about what it will not agree to. It has agreed to voluntarily reduce its greenhouse gas intensityits greenhouse
gas emissions per GDP which will not reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions. 149 But at the time of writing of
this book, China had steadfastly refused to accept a binding numerical limit on emissions, or any sort of cap. 150
For those familiar with Chinese foreign relations, it should come as no surprise that China is reluctant to be part of
an accord in which international negotiators come up with a worldwide cap on emissions and dole them out to the
different countries. For one thing, any cap-and-trade allocation is likely to be anchored to some degree in historical
emissions, even if subconsciously, which would heavily favor developed countries. Developing countries can and
should argue that a time dimension should be introduced, and some per capita dimension should be introduced, so
that developing countries have a chance to catch up, so to speak, to developed countries that have already emitted
so much carbon dioxide (and for the benefit of relatively small populations). While this has an obvious deontological
appeal, there is no indication at all that this would be an efficient path of emissions reduction. It is difficult,
moreover, to imagine that the huge emissions reduction necessary in developed countries in order to create room
for emissions growth in developing countries on the order of 90 percent in short order would be possible at any
reasonable cost. It follows, parenthetically, that this has little chance of political acceptance among the developed
countries. Also, cap-and-trade would have poor optics of having mostly Caucasian bureaucrats from Europe and
North America decide how much China should get in terms of its cap. This is likely to always be an irritant for
countries like China and India, even it is left unspoken.

Carbon taxes lead to international accordssolves warming

Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 94-5;
kdf)
if one reads between the lines of the steadfast opposition by China, India, and
other developing countries, one sees room for a carbon tax . An international accord based on
a carbon tax scheme would avoid the unfortunate appearance of China being
allocated some cap amount by an external bureaucracy, and most important, would not
represent, at least in their eyes, a binding limit to economic growth. Moreover, China and the
But

developing countries that sign on get to keep the carbon tax proceeds. These proceeds could be redistributed in
whatever way they deemed fit, even to industries that emit greenhouse gases. Of course, distributions should be

decoupled from consumption, in order to preserve the marginal emissions reduction incentives created by a carbon
tax. There is no point in collecting a carbon tax only to have the proceeds given back to emitters in proportion to
their payments that would obviously negate any marginal incentives to reduce emissions. So would distributions
be, in fact, decoupled from emissions? There is no reason to believe that, for example, a central government such

Carbon tax proceeds

represent an opportunity for central governments to use however they wish
redistributing money to poor households, improving health care, or even subsidizing
clean energy technologies. With Chinese leadership so concerned about
wealth inequalities, it seems unlikely that carbon tax proceeds would be used to undo the marginal
incentives to reduce emissions. A carbon tax, if it could be scaled up to an international accord, represents
a better chance of engaging China, India, and developing countries and providing
their governments with the incentives to put in place and keep in place policies to
reduce emissions. Cap-and-trade programs currently have little chance of accomplishing this on either of
as that in China would be particularly keen to simply rebate carbon tax proceeds.

these objectives.

International businesses get on board

Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 95-6;
kdf)
carbon taxes will better encourage international coordination has to
do with its subtle legal superiority in terms of justifying relief for domestic industries
that might suffer a competitive disadvantage from domestic carbon pricing.
International competition has remained a widespread and powerful political concern
with greenhouse gas regulation. Addressing this concern has sometimes involved relief in the form of
Finally, a third reason that

import or export adjustments, essentially rebating domestic industries that have to pay a carbon tax or are

Even though this competitive disadvantage

of paying a carbon tax is probably overblown, the possibility of relief goes a long
way toward overcoming opposition to greenhouse gas regulation. 152 The problem is that
subjected to other costly greenhouse gas regulation.

this kind of relief may be inconsistent with international trade rules.

Even if other countries dont use carbon taxes, the cp still

causes them to conform
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 96;
kdf)
There is a way, however, to not unilaterally disarm, and a carbon tax offers the best
chance to regulate domestically without doing so. If a country regulated greenhouse gas
emissions and could, via border tax adjustments, equalize the international playing field, then greenhouse gas
regulation would not necessarily put domestic industries at a competitive disadvantage. A border tax adjustment
could take many forms, but most commonly would be the levy of an import tax on products imported from countries

products made in countries that do not

regulate greenhouse gas emissions would face a tax when they seek to export to
countries that have domestic greenhouse gas regulations (with a border tax adjustment) in
place, eliminating any cost disparities. Similarly, if a regulating country could subsidize the export of
that did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions. So

a product to a country that did not regulate greenhouse gases, then its exporters would be on the same footing as

Without casting any normative judgments,

the countries that clearly fit the roles of this drama are the United States and China.
Equal access to the huge markets in the United States for all sorts of products is a
big deal, and whether a border tax adjustment could be levied on products from prolific producers such as those
in China is a question of enormous importance. In the United States, this has the potential to swing
legislators around to supporting regulation of greenhouse gases. Also, rising
consumption levels in China suggest that the ability of American exporters to send
goods to Chinese markets could be of great importance as well. The stakes of the legality of
domestic manufacturers in that nonregulating country.

border tax adjustments at least appear to be large.

at: Feasibility
Carbon taxes will be politically feasible- cap-and-trade proves
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 121-2;
kdf)
Moreover, what seems politically infeasible at one time , over time, can change. For
decades, economists argued that cap-and-trade programs represented a paradigm-shifting approach to
environmental law, one that could vastly improve not only the efficiency of pollution abatement, but also produce
better environmental outcomes. For decades, this instrument languished, as did the economists that advocated it.
For decades, cap-and-trade faced seemingly insurmountable political economies that favored the status-quo
command-and-control style of regulation. Industries were comfortable with having certainty in their compliance
buy a piece of equipment, and be confident of compliance. Regulators were comfortable with regulating that which
they could actually see and confirm: the installation of a piece of equipment. Environmental lawyers and
environmental organizations were comfortable and very much invested in a tangled legal system with the
ambiguities that command-and-control produces, and with the possibilities for litigation that these ambiguities
produce. There was a time in which this iron triangle of vested interests would have seemed difficult to dislodge.
And it was not as if command-andcontrol regulation accomplished nothing; on the contrary, a costbenefit analysis
of the first twenty years of the Clean Air Act a command-and-control-only era found that the benefits
outweighed the costs by an order of magnitude. 7 But cap-and-trade could promise more .

Over time, the

constant haranguing of economists and other academics found more and more
audiences, and over time, new political actors emerged, and others began to pick
up on the benefits of capand-trade as representing a substantial improvement over
commandand-control. Some environmental organizations, infused with economic
literacy for the first time, came to appreciate the benefits of cap-and-trade. Some
conservative politicians, traditionally hostile to government regulation, came to appreciate the
libertarian streak in cap-and-trade. It was President George H. W. Bush, and his combatively
conservative chief counsel, C. Boyden Gray, who helped push the sulfur dioxide emissions trading program through
Congress in 1990. And with the growth of environmental economics as an academic field of study, a new breed of
policy analysts were produced from colleges and universities that began to populate government agencies and
think tanks and gradually transform the conventional wisdom of environmental regulation. The coalitions that
formed to support the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade small government advocates and environmental advocates
seemed like strange bedfellows at first but, over time, became viewed as being, if not normal, at least unsuspicious.

at: Regressive
Revenue recycling guarantees that carbon taxes arent
regressive
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 131-3;
kdf)
All that said, calls for redistributions as part of greenhouse gas policy should not be ignored. Even most advocates

if the revenues from a carbon tax were simply absorbed

into the governmental treasury, then the carbon tax would indeed be regressive , as
for a carbon tax would concede that

several studies seem to indicate. 21 The question is, however, how to address these effects. In part this is such a
compelling question because the revenues from a carbon tax can be used to address the regressiveness. This

The key to addressing the regressiveness problem of carbon taxes is

to return, or recycle, at least a large portion of the carbon tax revenues. A number of
problem is solvable.

schemes have been proposed or implemented to recycle the tax revenues back to taxpayers in a way that blunts or

Provided that the recycling or return

of revenues to taxpayers is decoupled from consumption decisions, the revenue
recycling schemes can preserve the incentive for people to consume less while
serving as a wealth redistributive scheme. Revenue recycling has a very limited history, with only a
even reverses the economic pain suffered by poor households.

few examples. Sweden instituted a per-kilogram tax on NO x emissions which, as noted above, has been highly
successful, which refunded the proceeds back to the taxpaying NO x emitters. This revenue recycling scheme,
covering only electricity generating plants with more than 25 GWh of production per year, refunded the proceeds
back in proportion to energy production. The Swedish NO x charge thus provides a reward in the form of a net
subsidy to those electricity-generation plants that are able to produce electricity more efficiently those that
produce more electricity per unit of emitted NO x . It is an interesting experiment, and one that may have a
tangential effect on regressiveness, by keeping electricity rates down while offering a positive incentive to innovate.
But it does not substantially address concerns with regressiveness, since ratepayers of the firms that lose out under
such a scheme the electricity generating firms that are less clever and do not find a way to emit less NO x could
themselves be paying more for electricity. The British Columbia carbon tax is thus the most prominent experiment
to date with revenue recycling to reduce regressiveness. Political economy considerations played prominently in the
design and implementation of the BC carbon tax. Because the only serious rival in British Columbia to the governing
Liberal Party was the politically more liberal New Democratic Party, it was important for the carbon tax to address
concerns with regressiveness. It was, in fact, a very interesting political move to split the NDPs traditional base of
environmentalists and those concerned with economic inequality. This was done by a promise to recycle revenues.
So seriously did the governing British Columbia Liberal Party take this bit of political strategizing that, as noted
above, the carbon tax legislation includes a provision that penalizes the minister of finance personally to the tune of
a 15 percent salary cut if somehow the proceeds from the carbon tax were not fully returned in the form of revenue
give-backs to taxpayers. 22 Included in the revenue give-backs are: (i) a low-income refundable credit (the Climate
Action Tax Credit) of $100 per adult and $30 per child, (ii) a reduction in personal income taxes by 5 percent on the
first $70,000 of income, and (iii) reductions for corporate income taxes 23 In addition, along with the rollout of the
provincial budget that detailed the carbon tax and the revenue recycling schemes, the province issued a one-time
Climate Action Dividend of $100 per person for every resident of British Columbia as of December 31, 2007. 24 It is
easy to claim that the revenue recycling solves the regressiveness problem of the BC carbon tax as the governing
Liberal Party emphatically did but it is not entirely clear that it was successful, nor what exactly what that would
mean. It is an almost impossible claim to falsify, as it impossible to know exactly how much each household paid in
carbon taxes. Clearly, it would be impossible to make determinations on a household-by-household basis, but
besides that, there are direct carbon emissions driving a car and burning gasoline and indirect emissions
buying goods that were made from greenhouse gasemitting processes, those embedded emissions of products
consumed by each household. Determining direct emissions in disaggregated income classes would be challenging,
and determining indirect emissions impossible. Even gasoline has an uncertain carbon footprint, some of it being
produced by traditional methods, and some of it being produced in Canadas oil sands region by extremely
energyintensive refining methods. And aside from fossil fuel consumption, what about the carbon footprint of
produce (locally grown producers paying the carbon tax, importers not), or a myriad of electronic components in a
myriad of consumer products? Almost every single good consumed has a carbon footprint, and few of them are
measurable. Finally,

there is adjustment and substitution: even poor households are apt

to be willing and able to change some things to economize if there is a price on

carbon dioxide. But as the West and Williams study illustrates, it requires some econometric estimations.

Studies claiming carbon taxes appeal to emotions, not

economic logic
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 137-8;
kdf)
Regressiveness is an important consideration when weighing changes to tax policy,
but the obstacles to designing a progressive carbon tax seem to be solvable. Because economic
expenditures are uncertain and because regressiveness itself is susceptible to many definitions , it is probably
impossible to prove that revenue recycling reverses the regressive effects of carbon
pricing. But it is simple enough to formulate a package of tax policies that utilize
carbon tax proceeds (or auctioned allowance proceeds under cap-and-trade) to subsidize
lowincome households and lessen, if not entirely eliminate, any regressive impacts.
Those who oppose carbon taxes on grounds of regressiveness often ignore
these possibilities, relying on emotion rather than economic facts. At the same
time, policy makers have been incredibly timid in shying away from carbon pricing, and allowing the shrill to steer
the debate away from carbon taxation. So, we are left with the self-reinforcing notion that even mentioning carbon
taxes is political suicide. Moreover, of all of the types of government policies that are held hostage to income
inequality issues, carbon pricing is quite possibly the most important policy, and the one with the smallest

the US government has spent tens of billions of

dollars saving from bankruptcy two of the most stubbornly inefficient firms in the
history of human industry: automakers General Motors and Chrysle r. In addition, the
United States government has spent billions more on bailouts of financial firms that
made unwise strategic investments that they did not even understand. A cknowledging
regressive effect. In the past several years,

that there were macroeconomic benefits to these bailouts, most of the net winners of this generosity have been
shareholders, which are by and large the affluent half of the US population (and of foreign shareholders of these
corporations, which are likely to be even more affluent). The effects of spending these billions of dollars will not be

For all of
the great many reasons for the unacceptable present and future levels of economic
inequality in the developed countries of the world, especially in North America,
carbon pricing leading to higher energy prices would be a long, long way from being
the most egregious one.
obvious to most Americans for a long time, but cannot portend well for taxpayers of modest means.

at: Ineffectiveness
Short-term reductions matter less than long-term reductions in
the aggregate
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 140-1;
kdf)
Most energy analysis is conducted on own-price elasticities, although income also figures very prominently in
energy consumption. There are short-term and long-term elasticities adjustments that are made in the relatively
short term on the order of a few months and those that are made for the longer term. Long-term elasticities are
invariably greater, since at any given time, the timing may or many not be right for any individual household to
make an adjustment.

Over a longer period of time, there arise more and more times
during which an adjustment some decision that might be affected by a price seems
appropriate. For example, a family that has just purchased a new sport-utility vehicle
would not contemplate replacing it even if gasoline prices rose sharply . One would expect
very few adjustments of that sort. However, over a fiveor ten-year period, as the sport-utility
vehicle starts to age and incur more maintenance costs, and as it nears the end of
its useful life, a replacement decision is more likely to take into account gasoline
prices. As the same family contemplates what they will buy to replace that sport-utility vehicle, the family has a
wider array of options available than it does when it has a brand-new shiny SUV. And in the aggregate, over
a longer period, more and more households are likely to arrive at that decision point
at which they contemplate replacing an aging vehicle, and more adjustments are likely to be
made. As long-term elasticity takes into account this greater number of adjustments, it would naturally be larger
than short-term elasticities. Among commodities, fossil fuel usage is one of the more studied phenomena, and the
likelihood that people adjust to even small price changes in fossil fuel price is so well-established that it almost rises
to the level of an economic maxim. While one might ask oneself whether a family might change their mind about
anything if the carbon price is as small as $9 per ton of CO 2 (translating into 2.4 cents per liter at the gas pump),
there are a myriad of other decision makers that could well change their behavior. As argued above, the University
of British Columbia is just such an entity. Facing a tax liability that would be considered small by industrial
standards, but significant to an academic institution or a medium-sized business or industry, it set about finding
ways to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for powering the campus. For decades, economists have been studying
the aggregate responses to change in energy prices. The range of estimates can be quite large, as some studies are
limited to certain regions or countries, and some are limited in time, so the economic environment in which price
changes are studied can be quite varied. As an empirical matter, it is safe to say that long-term elasticities are
indeed greater than shortterm elasticities. It is also likely that industrial and commercial consumers have larger
long-term elasticities than residential consumers. 43 So it might be misleading for individuals to examine their own
personal situation and ask themselves, would I turn down my thermostat if the price of natural gas went up by 5

The point is how much, in the aggregate, all consumers of energy change
their behavior, and on this score, industrial and commercial consumers, which accounted for half of all energy
percent?

consumption in the United States in 2008 (with residential accounting for 22 percent), 44 would provide a different
answer.

Even if the cp isnt 100 percent effective, it is still beneficial

Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 142-3;
kdf)
But none of this is an argument against carbon taxes .

It may be true that there are barriers to

energy efficiency that carbon pricing cannot solve by itself. That does not mean that
there should be no carbon price at all. To return to a theme in this book, a carbon tax could well
complement other policies designed to bring about behavioral and structural change to reduce energy usage and

The mistake with arguing that a carbon tax is ineffective is that it

confuses individual instances of ineffectiveness with predictions about behavior in
the aggregate. For small carbon taxes, there is indeed no guarantee that even a significant portion of energy
consumers would change their behavior at all, let alone turn down their thermostats. A carbon tax would
have to be significant, and would have to increase over time to keep pace with
inflation, and with what economists believe is an increasing urgency over time to
reduce emissions. If a reasonably large carbon tax can be implemented, there would
be a myriad of opportunities to reduce emissions that, in the aggregate, could make
a difference. From the Dogfish Head Craft Brewery in Delaware to the University of British Columbia to
restaurants and universities buying James Perets Vegawatt generator, changes large and small are
made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions . It could even be unimportant if the vast majority of
households in British Columbia simply ignored the BC carbon tax. The BC carbon tax would serve a
valuable purpose if, in aggregate, other carbon dioxide-reducing changes
throughout the provincial economy add up to something substantial. The vast
amounts of economic research on energy usage strongly suggests that this will be
the case.
carbon dioxide emissions.

at: CCPA Study

The CCPA study is flawed- 2 reasons
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 133-4;
kdf)
There are at least two significant flaws in the CCPA analysis , however. First, as the CCPA
report explains, household size increases with income . 26 This is an acknowledgment that
individuals and households move up income strata over time. Over time, singleperson households marry and have

There is thus an ignored time dimension to the

CCPA analysis that was studied by Hassett and his coauthors . Making sure that
poorest British Columbians benefit more than others is in part helping people at a
certain stage of their lives. It is thus an oversimplification to characterize the British Columbia tax as
choosing the rich over the poor, as if everyone in the poor category were chronically poor. This also
undermines the notion that individuals in higher-income households have larger
carbon footprints. Larger households do, but because there are more members of larger households . The
second flaw in the CCPA analysis is its admission that it does not take into account
any substitution effects. 27 It asserts that a dynamic analysis would not change the results in a
children, and over time, incomes tend to increase.

meaningful way in the short term. Because of the small size of the tax, it will have little impact on consumer
behaviour. 28 Knowing from the West and Williams study that the lowest quintiles often make the most
substitutions, this is a significant leap. Because the carbon tax is quite small, the differences in incidence of the
carbon tax are quite small, so even a little bit of substitution has the potential to change the results. It could be that
after substitution, CCPAs conclusions do not hold. The West and Williams study used consumer expenditure data to
calculate price elasticities of households broken down into five quintiles by income. 29 Incorporating this extra
important step would seem to be a reasonable refinement of the CCPA study.

at: Policy Crowd out

Policy crowd out arguments only feed climate skepticismnot
a reason to vote aff
Hsu 2011(Shi-Ling [Larson Professor Florida State University College of Law] The
case for a carbon tax: Getting past our hang-up to effective climate policy; p 145;
kdf)
Another response to the serial-policy problem is simply that climate policy cannot be a one-and-done proposition.
This unhappy truth is typical of the difficult things that need to be effectively communicated about climate change
to a general public still lagging in understanding of the climate problem and the feasible solutions. That a general
public would like some finality to climate policy and carbon prices has not stopped economists from prescribing a
carbon tax that rises over time, matching the increasing marginal social damages of carbon dioxide emissions. Nor

Emitting greenhouse gases will become more costly as the world approaches
a likely future with increasingly severe climatic changes. Abating greenhouse gases too much
should it.

at any given time detracts from efforts to abate at other times. Along similar lines, while people may balk at taking
a costly first step that will not necessarily provide a complete solution, the iterative nature of climate science and
climate policy is such that this is likely inevitable. This disquieting indeterminacy is fodder for climate skeptics, who
have tapped into the uncertainty to sow doubt about the risk of climate change. But honest, forthright policy is not
playing into the hands of climate skeptics.

Attempting to evade or obfuscate the

inconveniences and costs of climate policy is playing into the hands of climate
skeptics. Further, it has to be courageously said there is uncertainty about climate
science, and that a current policy may be too much or may be too little. Again, policy
making under extreme uncertainty is not really new ; it is just that the analogies to familiar
policies need to be made. Very little is known about when the next major earthquake will
strike California or the Pacific Northwest. That does not render the policy of seismic
upgrading of public schools and nuclear reactors irrational.

at: Competitiveness
A carbon tax would have no impact on competitiveness
Mann 2002 (Roberta [Associate Professor of Law, Widener University School of
Law, Wilmington, Delaware; J.D., Arizona State University School of Law; LLM,
Georgetown University Law Center]; 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 1135; kdf)
The United States has the lowest environmental taxes of all OECD countries . n607
Imposing a carbon tax would provide revenue for increased reductions in other
forms of taxes, while providing collateral benefits. The collateral benefits would include
decreased health risks, lowered chance of catastrophic flooding, and preservation of
climate dependent ecosystems. A carbon tax would not necessarily reduce American
industry's competitiveness. The OECD notes that competitive concerns are lessened
when substitutes are available (such as fuel cell technology) and when the carbon tax
revenues are recycled back into the business sector. n608 A carbon tax would
provide the "stick" to go along with the "carrot" of tax incentives for alternative
energy sources and carbon sequestration . Furthermore, pollution taxes avoid some of the pitfalls of
other market-based instruments. n609 The Bush Administration appears to favor voluntary emission reductions
over mandatory caps. n610 While a carbon tax is theoretically a voluntary measure

because industry can

choose to reduce emissions to avoid the tax , it seems unlikely that this Congress would impose
another tax on business, even if it planned to recycle the revenues from that tax to reduce other tax burdens. n611

at: Politics Links- Popular

A carbon tax would be popular- three reasons
Rausch and Reilly 2012 (Sebastian and John [John M. Reilly is co-director for the Joint Program on
the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a senior lecturer at MITs
Sloan School of Management. Sebastian Rausch is an assistant professor of energy economics at ETH Zurich and
contributes to research at the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT]; Carbon Tax
Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution?; MIT Joint Program on the science and policy of global
change; Rep No. 228; Aug; kdf)

a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution . First,

carbon tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes,
corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to
social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense spending. Among
the revenue raising options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would start at $20 in
2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year, approximately 4% in real terms
given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it would raise on the order of
$1.25 trillion over a 10-year period. Second, economic analysis has demonstrated the
potential for a tax interaction effect whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon
tax to offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even under
some circumstances boost economic welfare (Bovenberg and Goulder, 1996). The Bush tax cuts
While raising taxes is never popular,

and other temporary tax relief measures are due to expire at

the end of 2012. A carbon tax could allow their

further extension. And, third,

a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon

dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.

A carbon tax is politically feasible

Colman 2012 (Zack; Study: Carbon tax could raise $1.5 trillion; Aug 27;
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/245587-study-carbon-tax-could-raise-15trillion; kdf)
Taxing carbon would generate $1.5 trillion , potentially giving politicians cover from
making politically difficult decisions on taxes and social spending cuts, according to
a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released Monday. A carbon tax would
take pressure off Congress to find tradeoffs between closing the deficit gap and
reviving the economy, according to John Reilly, an author of the study. Congress will face many difficult
tradeoffs in stimulating the economy and job growth while reducing the deficit, Reilly, the co-director of MITs Joint
But with the carbon tax there
are virtually no serious tradeoffs. Our analysis shows the overall economy improves,
taxes are lower and pollution emissions are reduced .

Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said in a statement.

at: Politics- Unpopular

Not politically feasible
Spence 2011 (David [Assoc prof of Law @ U of TX]; Regulation, "Republican
Moments," and Energy Policy Reform; 2011 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1561; kdf)
Many of these costs would be passed on to consumers.
Expensive electricity or gasoline not only upsets consumers (read: voters), but also poses
a risk to the already struggling American auto industry whose congressional
representatives come from political swing states in the Midwest . Some fossil fuel
companies have indicated that they would favor a carbon tax over Clean Air Act regulation or
a marketable permit system, n185 but they prefer no emissions reductions at all . n186 Of course,
Oil refineries would face similar costs.

[*1604] these interests perceive mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a threat regardless of the
regulatory instrument used to pursue that goal.