SIMPLE TEMPLATE CREATION

Document Sample
SIMPLE TEMPLATE CREATION Powered By Docstoc
					Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                    1/165


                                    ADVANTAGE COUNTERPLANS FLIGHT ONE INDEX

Advantage Counterplans Flight One Index ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Advantage Map 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Advantage Map 2/2 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

*** Cluster Groups Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Cluster Groups 1NC 1/2............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Cluster Groups 1NC 2/2............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................... 11
AT: CLusters Fail .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

*** Efficiency Counterplan *** .............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Efficiency 1NC 1/3 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Efficiency 1NC 2/3 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Efficiency 1NC 3/3 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Solvency – Blackouts ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Solvency – Blackouts ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Solvency – Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Solvency – Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Solvency – Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Solvency – Air Pollution .......................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 25
AT: Spending ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
AT: Efficiency  More Consumption .................................................................................................................................................... 27
AT: Alt Energy Key ................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Politics – Unpopular (Perm Links To Obama Good) ............................................................................................................................... 29
Politics – Popular ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Politics – Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

*** Readiness Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................................... 32
Readiness CP 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Solvency – Readiness .............................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Readiness Key to Heg .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35

*** Ghitmo Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Ghitmo 1NC 1/2....................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Ghitmo 1NC 2/2....................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
AT: Ghitmo Closed .................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Solvency – Soft Power ............................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Solvency – Soft Power ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Solvency – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Solvency – Human Rights Leadership ..................................................................................................................................................... 43
Solvency Modifier – Obama Signal ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Politics – Dems Oppose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Politics – Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Politics – Counterplan is a Win................................................................................................................................................................ 47

*** café Standards Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................................... 48
café Standards 1NC 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 49
café Standards 1NC 2/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Solvency – Oil Dependence ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Solvency – Oil Spills ............................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Solvency – Caspian Conflicts .................................................................................................................................................................. 53
                                        For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                               2/165
Solvency – ANWR .................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 55
AT: Oil Makes People Drive Less ........................................................................................................................................................... 56

*** Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................... 57
Comprehensive Test Ban 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Solvency – Nuclear Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................... 59
Solvency – Nuclear Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................... 60
AT: We need to Test New Nuclear Weapons .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Solvency – Proliferation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Solvency – Proliferation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Solvency – Terrorism and Arms Races .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Solvency – Environment .......................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Solvency – U.s. Credibility ...................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Solvency – Heg ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 67
AT: All of their CTBT Bad Arguments ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Net Benefit – Politcis ............................................................................................................................................................................... 69

*** Phytoplankton Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................................ 70
Phytoplankton 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 71
Ext. Dumping Iron  Phytoplankton ...................................................................................................................................................... 72
Solvency – Climate Change ..................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Evidence Indict ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
AT: U.S. Will Prevent Iron Dumping ...................................................................................................................................................... 75

*** Columbian Free Trade Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................... 76
Columbian Free Trade 1NC 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 77
Columbia Free Trade 1NC 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 78
Solvency – Checks Chavez ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Solvency – Checks Chavez / Hegemony ................................................................................................................................................. 80
Solvency – Free Trade ............................................................................................................................................................................. 81
Solvency – Environment .......................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Solvency – U.S. Trade Credibility ........................................................................................................................................................... 83
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Solvency – Democracy ............................................................................................................................................................................ 85

*** Biofortification Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 86
Biofortification 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 87
Solvency – Food Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................................... 88

*** Clean Water SRF Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 89
Clean Water SRF 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 90
Solvency – Water Polution ...................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Solvency Extensions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 92
Inherency Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................................... 93
Politics – Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 94
Politics – Popular ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 95

*** Satalites Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................. 96
Satalites 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 97
Solvency – Disease .................................................................................................................................................................................. 98
New Systems Key .................................................................................................................................................................................... 99

*** CRC Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................................... 100
CRC 1NC 1/2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 101
CRC 1NC 2/2 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 102
Solvency – Child Rights ........................................................................................................................................................................ 103
Solvency – Soft Power ........................................................................................................................................................................... 104
Solvency – Soft Power ........................................................................................................................................................................... 105
                                        For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                     3/165
Solvency – Human Rights Leadership ................................................................................................................................................... 106
AT: Unconstitutional ............................................................................................................................................................................. 107
AT: CRC Bad Turns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 108
AT: Federalism Turns ............................................................................................................................................................................ 109
AT: Abortion Turns ............................................................................................................................................................................... 110
AT: Child Executions Turn .................................................................................................................................................................... 111
AT: Sovreignty Turns ............................................................................................................................................................................ 112
AT: Parental Rights ............................................................................................................................................................................... 113
Politics – Popular ................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
Politics – Unpopular .............................................................................................................................................................................. 115

*** Legacies Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................................... 116
Legacies 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 117
Solvency – Racism................................................................................................................................................................................. 118

*** Conference Counterplan *** .......................................................................................................................................................... 119
Conference 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................... 120
Solves Democracy ................................................................................................................................................................................. 121

*** Native Gaming Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................... 122
Native Gaming 1NC 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 123
Native Gaming 1NC 2/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 124
Solvency – Self Determination .............................................................................................................................................................. 125
States Interfereing Now ......................................................................................................................................................................... 126

*** Conjugal Visits Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................... 127
Conjugal Visits 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 128
Solvency – Prison Rape ......................................................................................................................................................................... 129
AT: Rape is About Power Not Sex ........................................................................................................................................................ 130
AT: Other Problems ............................................................................................................................................................................... 131

*** CEDAW Counterplan *** .............................................................................................................................................................. 132
CEDAW CP 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 133
Solvency – Patriarchy ............................................................................................................................................................................ 134
Solvency – Patriarchy ............................................................................................................................................................................ 135
Solvency – Reproductive Rights ............................................................................................................................................................ 136
solvency – Human Rights ...................................................................................................................................................................... 137
Solvency – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................. 138
AT: CEDAW Fails................................................................................................................................................................................. 139
AT: CEDAW  Women In Combat ..................................................................................................................................................... 140
AT: Federalism Turns ............................................................................................................................................................................ 141
Politics – Popular ................................................................................................................................................................................... 142
Politics – Unpopular .............................................................................................................................................................................. 143

*** Global Poverty Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................... 144
Global Poverty CP 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 145
Solvency – Global Poverty .................................................................................................................................................................... 146
Solvency – Global Poverty .................................................................................................................................................................... 147
AT: Corruption ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 148
AT: US Poverty ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 149

*** Mine The Moon Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 150
Mine The Moon 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 151
Solvency – Space Exploration ............................................................................................................................................................... 152
AT: The Moon Has No H3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 153

*** Nanomedicine Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 154
Nanomedicine 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 155


                                        For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                            The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                       4/165
*** Corn Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................................... 156
Corn 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 157
Solvency – Subsidies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 158
Solvency – Spillover .............................................................................................................................................................................. 159
Solvency – Obesity ................................................................................................................................................................................ 160
Solvency – economy .............................................................................................................................................................................. 161
AT: Sugar Worse ................................................................................................................................................................................... 162
AT: Cutting Subsidies Doesn‘t Help ..................................................................................................................................................... 163

*** Bailout COunterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................ 164
Bailout 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 165




                                        For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                          5/165


                                              ADVANTAGE MAP 1/2

Competitiveness
Clusters CP
Columbia Free Trade CP

The Grid
Efficiency

Hard Power (Heg)
Readiness CP
Columbia Free Trade CP

Soft Power
Ghitmo CP
CRC CP

Peak Oil
Café Stantdards CP

Proliferation
CTBT CP

Warming
Phytoplankton CP
Café Standards CP

Free Trade
Columbia Free Trade CP

Relations??

Food Security
Bio-fortification CP

Air Pollution
Efficiency CP

Clean Water
Clean Water SRF CP

Terrorism
Ghitmo CP

Disease
Satellite CP

Child Rights
CRC CP

Racism
Legacies CP




                         For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                          6/165


                                              ADVANTAGE MAP 2/2

Freedom of Speech???

Democracy
Conference CP
Columbia Free Trade CP

Natives
Gaming CP

Prison Rape
Conjugal Visits

Human Rights
Ghitmo CP
CRC CP
CEDAW CP

Patriarchy
CEDAW CP

Global Poverty
Global Poverty CP

Space
NASA CP

Economy
Cluster CP
Café Standards CP
Efficiency CP

Biodiversity
Columbia Free Trade CP

Nanotech
Nanomedicine CP

Obesity
Corn CP

State Economies
Bailout CP




                         For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                        7/165


                            *** CLUSTER GROUPS COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                  The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                            8/165


                                                        CLUSTER GROUPS 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should provide tax incentives for the development of Economic
Cluster groups

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Economy
Clusters are key to broader economic development
Joseph Cortright, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, 2006, Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and Economic
Development, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/03cities_cortright.aspx
In recent years, “cluster strategies” have become a popular economic development approach among state and local policymakers and
economic development practitioners. An industry cluster is a group of firms, and related economic actors and institutions, that are
located near one another and that draw productive advantage from their mutual proximity and connections . Cluster analysis can help diagnose
a region’s economic strengths and challenges and identify realistic ways to shape the region’s economic future. Yet many policymakers and practitioners have only a
limited understanding of what clusters are and how to build economic development strategies around them. This discussion paper reviews the academic literature on
industry clusters. It explains what clusters are, why they matter for regional economic development policy, and how to use cluster analysis as a guide to policy and
practice. Overall, the review’s most important findings for policymakers and practitioners are: Clusters are the key organizational unit for understanding
and improving the performance of regional economies. The foundation of a regional economy is a group of clusters, not a collection of
unrelated firms. Firms cluster together within a region because each firm benefits from being located near other similar or related
firms. The firms in a cluster have common competitive strengths and needs. Cluster thinking matters because it orients economic
development policy and practice toward groups of firms and away from individual firms. It is more important and fruitful to work with groups of
firms on common problems (such as training or industrial modernization) than to work with individual firms. The cluster approach leads to little if any reliance on
economic development subsidies and recruitment efforts aimed at individual firms; if these individual, firm-based policies are used at all, they should be focused on
firms that fit within existing clusters. Cluster thinking offers important lessons for economic development policy and practice. Cluster thinking teaches
policymakers and practitioners to: Build on the unique strengths of their regions rather than try to be like other regions. Different
regions have different sets of economic development opportunities. Not every place can or should become another Silicon Valley. Go
beyond analysis and engage in dialogue with cluster members. Many policymakers and practitioners treat research on and analysis of
clusters as the only elements of a cluster strategy. In fact, they are only a starting point for a cluster strategy. Identifying a cluster’s competitive strengths
and needs requires an ongoing dialogue with the firms and other economic actors in the cluster. Although the public sector cannot be the exclusive driver of cluster
policy, it can play a central role in convening cluster members and working with private-sector cluster organizations. Develop different strategies for different clusters.
Clusters vary from industry to industry and from place to place and operate in many different dimensions. Different clusters have different needs. There is no one
set of policies that will make all clusters successful. For example, a technology cluster may require help with research or capital, while
a metals industry cluster may require assistance with job training or technology deployment. Foster an environment that helps new
clusters emerge rather than creating a specific cluster from scratch. It is difficult for public policy to create new clusters deliberately.
Instead, policymakers and practitioners should promote and maintain the economic conditions that enable new clusters to emerge.
Such an environment might, for example, support knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, new firm formation, and the availability of
capital. Cluster policy is not about “picking winners” or excluding industries. Much of the research on clusters has been preoccupied
with debating the precise definition of a cluster, applying a single methodology, or examining whether clusters are good or bad for
various measures of regional economic success. If research is to be more relevant to policy and practice, it should move beyond these
concerns. Researchers should accept that clusters are an umbrella concept, not a precisely defined term, and that clusters vary from
place to place and across industries. They should work toward a more widely shared, multidimensional approach for characterizing
different types of clusters. They should combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Ultimately, cluster research should evolve to
become a creative and informative mixture of art and science that helps academics, policymakers, and citizens better understand the
varied workings of their regional economies.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  9/165


                                             CLUSTER GROUPS 1NC 2/2

(__) Competitiveness
Clusters are key to regional competitiveness – which in turn is key to the economy
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) 2001: CLUSTERS of INNOVATION: Regional Foundations of U.S.
Competitiveness. http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Clusters-of-Innovation/Clusters-of-Innovation.pdf
Today, the nation is experiencing an economic downturn. While fiscal and monetary policies pump dollars into the economy to boost
the level of activity, innovation infuses the economy with growth-incubating new ideas, new products, services, and technologies.
National policies and national investment choices have much to do with the growth and capacity of the American economy. For
innovation, however, the real locus of innovation is at the regional level. The vitality of the U.S. economy then depends on creating
innovation and competitiveness at the regional level. In healthy regions, competitiveness and innovation are concentrated in clusters,
or interrelated industries, in which the region specializes. The nation‘s ability to produce high-value products and services that support
high wage jobs depends on the creation and strengthening of these regional hubs of competitiveness and innovation.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               10/165


                                               SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Counterplan solves their economy impacts – cluster groups allow industries in regional economies to collaborate and which
leads to greater returns – we isolate two internal links:
         - improves regional economies – by making a region‘s economy more productive that solves at the small scale level
         and leads to economic growth because each region can pick the best industry to suit its needs
         - AND global competitiveness – silicon valley is one of the most competitive regions in the global technology market
         and making other regions competitive globally solves back for U.S. competitiveness in the global economy – that‘s
         Cortright

Cluster economics contribute to employment in the private sector avoiding stagflation and economic collapse
Scott Stern (professor @ Northwestern et al) January 2008: ―Convergence, Clusters and Economic Performance‖. Google Scholar
Finally, a region‘s strong clusters and the connections among them contribute to the employment and patenting growth of
other traded and local clusters in the region. The ability of a region to perform well in whichever clusters with meaningful
position seems important for regional employment growth. Our findings suggest that the positive influence of cluster
strength on regional employment growth is not driven just by high- tech or fast growing service clusters. The specialization of a
region in non high-tech manufacturing clusters also matters. An interesting extension of the regional model will be to examine
the relationship between region economic performance and the cluster mix of neighbors. Overall, our findings imply that
regional clusters play a central role in the performance of regional economies, but more research is needed in this area.
We plan to improve the analysis by exploring the interactions of cluster-agglomeration forces with key attributes of the region
and the cluster, such as the composition of human capital. Another question that we plan to explore in related work is how the
cluster composition of regions influences wages and productivity in regions and firms.

Clusters key to competition, knowledge creation, innovation and job creation
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) ― Clusters and Economic Policy 5/18/2009: Aligning Public Policy with the
New Economics of Competition‖ Google Scholar
Clusters have long been a feature of economic geography, but their influence on competition has grown with the shifting
nature of competition and the restructuring of how companies operate. Competition in advanced economies is increasingly
driven by knowledge and skill, with low cost labor and other resources accessed in cheaper locations. Clusters are important
because they play a fundamental role in knowledge creation, innovation, the accumulation of skills, and the development of
pools of employees with specialized expertise.

Clusters solve economic growth thru increased competition and innovation
The Hill group No Date, provides consulting services to a wide range of clients including large corporations, many of the Fortune
500 and governments ―Regional Cluster Strategies‖ www.workforce-strategy.com/clusterstrategies.pdf)
Each region has its own cluster strength. A region that is able to successfully identity and work with its clusters will reap many
strategic benefits. When examined from a global perspective Porter explains that regions offer significant competitive advantages.
―Regional clusters have the ability to offer local things such as knowledge, relationship, and motivation which can not be matched
by distant rivals.― 4 Therefore, regions that foster their local cluster based strengths can reap tangible returns. Job creation and new
entrepreneurial innovations are able to flourish in such a collaborative environment. New leaders can develop within this context and
continue to drive the networks and alliances of industry that will serve as power brokers within government and the community to
continue to evolve a demand-driven framework. By working with clusters, community organizations and other support services may
be able to increase their efficiency and effectiveness by directing services toward larger groups of firms. For example, organizations
can enhance an industry's employee retention efforts through their childcare services, transportation services, housing and home
ownership programs, and training programs. By working closely with a cluster, the organizations also have the opportunity to build
relationships with industry that can facilitate the delivery of their services. Community organizations can work together with industry
and public agencies to assist people in moving from welfare-to-work or school- to-work into specific industries with promising
futures. By listening to industry cluster needs, economic developers can develop broad strategies to complement existing industries
in the area As a result, regional focus on such local strengths and industries can effectively and efficiently streamline marketing
efforts, workforce development and produce greater return on regional investments.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                11/165


                                       SOLVENCY – COMPETITIVENESS

Counterplan solves competitiveness –economic cluster groups at the regional level are the cornerstone for making local
economies competitive by allowing firms to work together to develop new ideas and share resources – that‘s Porter, he‘s an
economics professor at Harvard, prefer him. We have empirical examples – silicon valley is one of the most competitive
regions for technology development in the world.

Economic clusters are key to competitiveness – close proximity yields better market insights, larger talent pools, and better
deployment of new knowledge
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) 2001: CLUSTERS of INNOVATION: Regional Foundations of U.S.
Competitiveness. http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Clusters-of-Innovation/Clusters-of-Innovation.pdf
Regional economies are the building blocks of U.S. competitiveness. The nation‘s ability to produce high-value products and
services depends on the creation and strengthening of regional clusters of industries that become hubs of innovation.
Understanding is growing about how these clusters enhance productivity and spur innovation by bringing together technology,
information, specialized talent, competing companies, academic institutions, and other organizations. Close proximity, and the
accompanying tight linkages, yield better market insights, more refined research agendas, larger pools of specialized talent, and faster
deployment of new knowledge. Utilizing a unique database developed at the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard
Business School, we are now able to systematically measure the relative strength of regional economies and their clusters and track
their economic and innovation performance over time. In addition, a team consisting of individuals at Monitor Group and its affiliate
ontheFRONTIER, the Council on Competitiveness, and the Institute have conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and strategic
analyses in order to assess the strengths and challenges of five pilot regions: Atlanta, Pittsburgh, the Research Triangle in North
Carolina, San Diego, and Wichita. This national report draws heavily upon the five regional studies and synthesizes the implications
for any region that seeks to improve its economic performance. The report examines the composition and performance of regional
economies, how industry clusters develop and innovation arises, how clusters affect a region's economic future, and how a region can
establish a strategy and action program to drive its economy and clusters forward. The framework employed and the lessons learned
apply to every region of the country.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 12/165


                                                   AT: CLUSTERS FAIL

None of their evidence applies because federal inaction dooms clusters in the SQ. CP is key to economic
competition and uniquely situated to boost growth
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school ― Clusters and Economic Policy) 5/18/2009: ―Aligning Public Policy with the
New Economics of Competition‖ Google Scholar
Yet a crucial locus for economic policy, in between the general economy and individual firms and industries, has been largely
ignored, especially at the Federal level. If we look closely at modern economies we observe another important economic unit,
which is clusters. 2 Clusters are geographic concentrations of firms, suppliers, support services, specialized infrastructure, producers
of related products, and specialized institutions (e.g., training programs and business associations) in a particular field. Clusters often
involve a mix of manufacturing and services, and combine industries in different parts of traditional industrial classification systems.
Clusters as an economic unit, then, are very different from sectors (such as manufacturing) or industries (such as tires). Clusters are
a striking feature of every advanced economy. Examples of U.S. clusters are money management in Boston, light aircraft in
Wichita, entertainment in Los Angeles, information technology in Silicon Valley, and boat building in Maine.           Clusters consist of
dense networks of interrelated firms that arise in a region because of powerful externalities and spillovers across firms (and various
types of institutions) within a cluster. Clusters drive productivity and innovation. Firms that are located within a cluster can transact
more efficiently, share technologies and knowledge more readily, operate more flexibly, start new businesses more easily, and
perceive and implement innovations more rapidly. They can also efficiently access ―public goods‖ such as pools of specialized
skilled employees, specialized infrastructure, technological knowledge, and others. Clusters embody traditional notions such as
input-output linkages, but much more. Because of the importance of physical proximity in reaping cluster benefits, clusters are often
regional instead of national except in small countries such as Singapore. The mix of clusters varies markedly across regions. Each
regional economy normally has a relatively small number of traded clusters in which the region is truly competitive with other
regions and countries. These clusters account for a major portion of the region‘s traded goods and services. There is no national
economy, then, but a series of regional economies that trade with each other and the rest of the world, each with its own particular
pattern of cluster specialization. Such regional specialization drives productivity and productivity growth in the national economy.
There is growing statistical evidence that regions with stronger clusters achieve better economic performance and faster innovation. 3
Clusters represent an increasingly important economic unit, then, but one that has been all but ignored in policymaking at the
Federal level in the United States. In this paper, I describe why clusters are a prominent feature of modern economies and why a
role for public policy at the cluster level is justified by economic theory. Cluster-based policies should increasingly replace industry-
level and firm-level policies, because cluster policy is more efficient, minimizes distortions to competition, and is better aligned with
the nature of competition in the modern economy. I then sketch some implications of clusters for policy at the Federal level.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       13/165


                                 *** EFFICIENCY COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                 The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                          14/165

                                                               EFFICIENCY 1NC 1/3

The United States federal government should switch all power lines to High Voltage Direct Current and develop
superconductor cables, insulate electricity substations with inert gas, and establish wide area monitoring stations to improve
grid efficiency in the United States.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Blackouts
Our solvency mechanisms solves the grid best
ABB 2007: Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid.
http://www02.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/64cee3203250d1b7c12572c8003b2b48/$FILE
/Energy%20efficiency%20in%20the%20power%20grid.pdf
The proposed standards will have a relatively modest impact on the efficiency of a given transformer, around 4% over current models.
However, when this incremental gain is multiplied across the thousands of units operated by even a small utility, the result is
impressive. DoE expects to issue a final rule on the new standard later this year with implementation set for 2010.There are other initiatives at the distribution level,
but if we focus our attention on the measures that have the greatest potential for improving efficiency, we inevitably must look to
transmission. There are numerous technologies that are already being applied to boost efficiency in transmission, and still more that have yet to reach full
commercial implementation. In the following sections, we explore some of these technologies. HVDC Most of the transmission lines that make up the
North American transmission grid are high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) lines. Direct current (DC) transmission offers great
advantages over AC, however: 25% lower line losses, two to five times the capacity of an AC line at similar voltage, plus the ability to
precisely control the flow of power. Historically, the relatively high cost of HVDC terminal stations relegated the technology to being used only in long-haul
applications like the Pacific DC Intertie, which connects the vast hydro power resources of the Columbia River with the population centers of Southern California.
With the advent of a new type of HVDC, invented by ABB and dubbed HVDC Light, the benefits of DC transmission are now being realized on much shorter
distances. The Cross-Sound Cable connecting Long Island and Connecticut is one example of this technology. FACTS Devices A family of power electronics devices
known as Flexible AC Transmission Systems, or FACTS, provides a variety of benefits for increasing transmission efficiency. Perhaps the most immediate is their
ability to allow existing AC lines to be loaded more heavily without increasing the risk of disturbances on the system. Actual results vary with the characteristics of
each installation, but industry experience has shown FACTS devices to enhance transmission capacity by 20-40%. FACTS devices stabilize voltage, and in so doing
remove some of the operational safety constraints that prevent operators from loading a given line more heavily. In addition to the efficiency gains, these devices also
deliver a clear reliability benefit. Gas-Insulated Substations Most substations occupy large areas of land to accommodate the design requirements
of the given facility. However, each time power flows through a substation to step down the voltage, more energy is lost as the power
flows through the transformers, switches and other equipment. The efficiency of the lower-voltage lines coming out of the substation
is also markedly lower than their high-voltage counterparts. If power can be transmitted at higher voltage to a substation that is closer
to where the energy will be consumed, significant efficiency improvements are possible. Gas-insulated substations essentially take all
of the equipment you would find in an outdoor substation and encapsulate it inside of a metal housing. The air inside is replaced with
a special inert gas, which allows all of the components to be placed much closer together without the risk of a flashover. The result is
that it is now possible to locate a substation in the basement of a building or other confined space so that the efficiency of high-voltage
transmission can be exploited to the fullest extent. Superconductors Superconducting materials at or near liquid nitrogen temperatures
have the ability to conduct electricity with near-zero resistance. So-called high temperature superconducting (HTS) cables now under
development, which still require some refrigeration, can carry three to five times the power of conventional cables. The losses in HTS
cables are also significantly lower than the losses in conventional lines, even when the refrigeration costs are included. A major vendor of
superconducting conductors claims that the HTS cable losses are only half a percent (0.5%) of the transmitted power compared to 5-8% for traditional power cables.
Superconducting materials can also be used to replace the copper windings of transformers to reduce losses by as much as 70% compared to current designs.
Wide Area Monitoring Systems Much of the transmission system could feasibly be operated at a higher loading, were it not for reliability concerns. However, if
operators were given the ability to monitor grid conditions more precisely and in real time, some of these constraints would be
removed. One example relates to the simple fact that when transmission lines heat up, the metal becomes pliable and the lines sag,
which can cause a short circuit if they come into contact with a tree or other grounding object. Wide area monitoring systems
(WAMS) have many promising capabilities, one of which is line thermal monitoring. With this functionality, transmission operators
could conceivably change the loading of transmission lines more freely by virtue of having a very clear understanding of how close a
given line really is to its thermal limits.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                15/165


                                                   EFFICIENCY 1NC 2/3

(__) Climate
Energy efficiency is key to prevent climate change and bolster energy security
Lashof, Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Center Science Director, 5/24/2007
[Daniel, "ENERGY EFFICIENCY; ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LOANS," congressional testimony, lexis]
Increasing energy efficiency is the biggest, fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to reduce global warming pollution. In general, NRDC
strongly supports the energy efficiency provisions of the May 17th discussion draft. The forcing function to ensure that DOE meets
statutory deadlines to promulgate energy efficiency standards is particularly important given the Department's shameful past record of
missed deadlines.
Modernizing our electricity transmission system is an important enabler for cost-effective energy efficiency measures as well as
expanded use of renewable energy and tracking electricity use in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In general, NRDC supports the
smart grid provisions of the May 17th discussion draft. The provisions to encourage states to align utility incentives with the public
interest by decoupling revenues from electricity sales volumes recognize the critical need for this state policy to enable a substantial
increase in utility sector energy efficiency programs. These programs are essential for energy efficiency achieving its potential for
reducing global warming pollution.

(__) Air Pollution
Energy efficiency solves air pollution
Bernstein, USC Political Science Professor, USC Energy Institute Director, 2002
[Mark, Christopher Pernin, Sam Loeb and Mark Hanson,"the public benefit of energy efficiency to the state of Massachusetts,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1588/]
Environmental policies and regulatory requirements associated with electricity generation are many and complex. Potential
environmental impacts such as air emissions, hazardous waste, poor water quality, and land use disputes are all areas of concern. In
this analysis we focus on the effects of energy consumption on air quality. In particular, energy consumption directly leads to the air
emissions, which include various air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act (e.g., particulate matter, SO2, NOx, CO) and CO2.
We calculate emissions reductions due to reduced energy intensity in the industrial and commercial sectors, after considering control
factors, from the total electricity used in each sector, in comparison to the electricity consumption if energy intensity had not changed
since 1977. We also consider the fact that Massachusetts receives its power from a variety of sources in the NPCC region; thus,
emissions rates and the state‘s total emissions from electricity consumption are calculated from the aggregate emissions in that
region. Finally, we use the aggregate emissions from fossil-fueled generators in that region since those would be the emitters reduced
or increased in any one year. If we consider an aggregate emissions level from fossil-fueled power production in the NPCC, reduced
energy intensity in the commercial and industrial sectors displaced approximately 11,000 tons of SO2 and 4,000 tons of NOx in 1997.
In addition, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by approximately two million tons in 1997 by reduced energy intensity in
commercial and industrial sectors in Massachusetts. The total amount reduced over the study period associated with reductions in
energy intensity is equal to approximately the total amount emitted in 1997 (Figure 3.3). Air quality has decreased in Massachusetts,
particularly near growing population centers. As shown in Figure 2.9, parts of some counties are in nonattainment of CO standards,
and the entire state is in nonattainment for atmospheric ozone. Further population growth will exacerbate problems in air quality due
to energy use. While the primary contributor to decreased air quality throughout Massachusetts is motor vehicles, emissions from
electricity production and industry also contribute. Our analysis shows that reductions in energy intensity have not only produced
economic benefits but also slowed the increase in air emissions throughout the region.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               16/165


                                                  EFFICIENCY 1NC 3/3

(__) Economy
Energy efficiency sparks economic growth – leads to more jobs and consumer spending
US Department Of Energy, The Jobs Connection: Energy Use and Local Economic Development, 1996, bansal
The economic multiplier, also known as the multiplier effect, is a measure of how much economic activity can be generated in a
community by different combinations of purchasing and investment.
For example, in Osage, a $1.00 purchase of ordinary consumer goods in a local store generates $1.90 of economic activity in the local
economy. This occurs as the dollar is respent; the store pays its employees, who purchase more goods, all with the same original
dollar. In comparison, petroleum products generate a multiplier of about $1.51; utility services, $1.66; and energy efficiency, $2.23
(see Note on p. 6).
How does the economic multiplier help? It helps by generating more economic activity, which strengthens the local economy. A
higher economic multiplier will lead to greater economic vitality because business activity is encouraged, and jobs are created and
sustained. Economic growth is enhanced when expenditures with a good economic multiplier are implemented. From the perspective
of local government, this policy approach leads to growth in the local tax base and a healthier fiscal picture.
For many communities, the majority of energy dollars leave the local economy as payments for energy bills and escape local
influence. On the other hand, financial investments made locally in energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy technologies
(e.g., hydroelectric, cogeneration, biomass, and wind) can be an economically healthy choice. The economic multiplier effect causes
several types of economic benefits as a result of initial investments in energy efficiency and alternative energy projects:
Direct Effects. When on-site jobs are created, this is a direct effect. For example, when Fox River Mills installed efficient electric
motors in its manufacturing process, direct economic effects were created for the vendor who sold the motors (e.g., accounts
receivable) and the contractor who installed the motors (e.g.,
compensation for services).
Indirect Effects. Additional jobs and economic activity caused by the original event are known as the indirect effect. For example, the
vendor who sold the efficient motors can now pay others who provide business support services, such as clerical and accounting staff,
or wholesale suppliers.
Induced Effects. Money paid to all those involved in the direct and indirect effects (e.g., the motor installer, the vendor, and the
wholesale supplier) induces more positive effects in the local economy. These induced effects occur through people‘s purchases of
additional goods and services (e.g., retailers, professionalservices, and entertainment).




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 17/165


                                              SOLVENCY – BLACKOUTS

Comparatively, our mechanism for solving the grid is most effective because it focuses on modernizing power lines, which
currently lose up to 25% of the electricity that goes through them. Replacing current power lines with high voltage lines will
reduce the amount of power lost to almost zero. We also provide a mechanism for monitoring all areas of the grid for downed
power lines, which is what caused the 2003 blackout – that‘s ABB

Improving power grid efficiency is key to stopping blackouts and brownouts and without increasing efficiency, the plan would
be useless, because there would not be energy infrastructure to support it
Jason Mick, 8/29/2008: Aging power grid crippling wind and solar efforts
http://www.dailytech.com/Aging+Power+Grid+Crippling+Wind+Solar+Efforts/article12802.htm
 The power grid is the system conceived by utilities a century ago, which pumps power from plants to cities and towns along a series
of power lines similar to the road system in the U.S. There are big lines and small lines just as there are highways, surface streets, and
dirt roads. The grid has for many years allowed small scale sharing of power, and prevents blackouts.
However, experts say today the grid's infrastructure is aging badly, not only jeopardizing alternative energy, but building a risk of
brownouts, under the country's increasing energy demands. Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulation
Commission, states, "We need an interstate transmission superhighway system."
While today, wind power only provides 1 percent of the country's electricity, that's expected to grow to as much as 20 percent within a
couple decades. Even today, wind farms, such as the Maple Ridge Wind farm -- a 200 turbine, $320M USD installation -- have been
forced to shut down on windy days, due to the grid being overwhelmed. And the problems are only expected to get worse.
Horizon Wind Energy, which owns the Maple Ridge Wind farm, says that areas of Wyoming could generate 50 percent more
electricity than turbines in New York or Texas, the current wind leader of the U.S. However, much of Wyoming is off the grid or
lightly covered, making such projects impractical. Gabriel Alonso, chief development officer of the company states, "The windiest
sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers."
Companies currently have to pay fees to pump power into the power lines, due to the lines being overwhelmed by traffic. The
problem is there, but no one wants to do anything about it. State governments don't want to spend large amounts of money to push
grid updates that would benefit their neighbors. And the national government, which acknowledges the grid problems, doesn't want to
pull rank on the state governments.
T. Boone Pickens, an oil billionaire investing massively in green gold -- wind -- wants to use a right of way he obtained for a water
pipeline between Texas and the Florida panhandle to develop a massive high-power transmission line to carry power from his wind
farms. He is urging the national government to act to help his project. He states, "If you want to do it on a national scale, where the
transmission line distances will be much longer, and utility regulations are different, Congress must act."
One problem is the feudal state of the grid. The grid's 200,000 miles of power lines are divided among 500 different owners. To
advance a project, typically the approval of multiple companies, many state governments and numerous permits must be obtained.
The situation is so awkward, after a series of brownouts, Congress in 2005 passed the energy law which gives the federal Energy
Department the right to step in if the states are not acting. It designated two areas -- the Middle Atlantic States and one in the
Southwest -- as critical action areas, at risk of failure.
Kevin M. Kolevar, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability stated in a speech last year, "Modernizing the
electric infrastructure is an urgent national problem, and one we all share."
In order to achieve 20 percent wind capacity, 2,100 miles of new high voltage lines would be needed. While this is not a huge amount
compared to the national grid, it would cost nearly $60B USD. However, the states are unwilling to cooperate or invest in such a
multi-state initiative, largely.
A few state leaders are calling for change and cohesive leadership, though. Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a former
energy secretary under President Bill Clinton states, "We still have a third-world grid. With the federal government not investing, not
setting good regulatory mechanisms, and basically taking a back seat on everything except drilling and fossil fuels, the grid has not
been modernized, especially for wind energy."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               18/165


                                             SOLVENCY – BLACKOUTS

Energy efficiency solves the energy grid – reduces demand and improves reliability
Levine and Kendall, Senior Attorney Conservation Law Foundation and Ralph C. Menapace Fellow in Environmental and Land Use
Law, 2006 [Sandra and Katie Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Experiences LexisNexis fall 2006
Fu]

There are many benefits to meeting our power needs with less energy. Some are obvious. Using less power avoids the cost and
pollution of new power plants. n2 It also lowers overall energy costs and improves system reliability. n3 Investing in energy efficiency
results in achieving energy needs for about one-third to one-half the cost of buying more power on the open market. n4 More
efficiency also reduces load, wear, and maintenance needs on the entire electrical system, allowing improved reliability of our power
grid. n5
The benefits from energy efficiency and conservation also extend beyond benefits to those who reduce consumption and have lower
energy bills. Improving efficiency lowers overall demand on the system and can thereby lower the wholesale market clearing price for
electricity because less energy is needed. n6 A lower clearing price allows lower electric prices for all customers. n7 This is
particularly important in places like Vermont where the long-term contracts for two-thirds of the State's energy supply, from Hydro
Quebec and Vermont Yankee, will expire in the next decade, and will most likely be replaced with more expensive power from the
wholesale market. n8




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             19/165


                                       SOLVENCY – CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy efficiency is the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – less power used is less power generated by
massive polluting coal plants – that‘s Lashof

Energy efficiency is key to energy security and reduce GHG emissions
The World Bank, 2006
["Financing Energy Efficiency," http://www.cfr.org/publication/16426/3_country.html]

The critical importance of improving energy efficiency globally, but especially in rapidly growing developing countries such as China,
India and Brazil, is well documented in other analyses. IEA‘s World Energy Outlook 2004 projects in its reference scenario a 60
percent increase in global energy demand with a matching increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years. China, India,
and Brazil represent three of the top ten energy consuming nations in the world now, and their share in total consumption will
certainly increase. In the world as a whole, but especially in these rapidly growing developing countries, efficiency improvements to
generate more economic output with less energy input is essential for reasons of energy supply security, economic competitiveness,
improvement in livelihoods and environmental sustainability. In an Alternative Policy Scenario, developed to investigate how a more
sustainable global energy supply and use economy might be developed by 2030, the IEA estimates that two-thirds of the hoped for
carbon dioxide reduction emissions in developing countries must come from improved energy efficiency, and the balance from
improvements in the mix of energy supply technologies.

Energy efficiency is key with the growing demand of energy. It inherently increases energy security, competiveness,
livelihoods, and environmental sustainability.
Robert P. Taylor, 2008
[Financing Energy Efficiency: Lessons from Brazil, China, India, and Beyond, page 3, 2008, Daniel Sung]

The critical importance of improving energy efficiency globally, but especially in rapidly growing developing countries such as China,
India, and Brazil, is well documented in other analyses. IEA‘s World Energy Outlook 2006 forecasts in its reference scenario a 53
percent increase in global energy demand with matching large increases in carbon dioxide emissions between 2004 and 2030 (IEA
2006b). China, India, and Brazil represent three of the top 10 energy consuming nations in the world now, and their share in total
consumption will certainly increase. In the world as a whole, but especially in these rapidly growing developing countries, efficiency
improvements to generate more economic output with less energy input is essential for reasons of energy supply security, economic
competitiveness, improvement in livelihoods, and environmental sustainability. In an Alternative Policy Scenario, developed to
investigate how more sustainable global energy supply and use might be developed by 2030, the IEA estimates that two-thirds of the
hoped for carbon dioxide emission reductions in developing countries must come from improved energy efficiency, and the balance
from changes in the mix of energy supply technologies.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  20/165


                                         SOLVENCY – CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy efficiency is critical – environmental externalities
Rotenberg, J.D. candidate, graduate of Yale law school, 2006
[Edan Energy Efficiency in Regulated and Deregulated Markets LexisNexis 2006 Fu]

Energy security is a red herring, but it has phenomenal political traction. The two more logical reasons to engage in energy
conservation put forward by advocates are both related to market failures. The first reason is the failure of the market to account for
environmental externalities in electricity prices. The proponents of the "wrong price" argument believe that electricity is priced
incorrectly from a social point of view. On this view the price is wrong because environmental externalities are not included. The
second argument centers on a variety of structural flaws, including transaction and information costs, that create imperfect markets.
Here the issue is the "wrong reaction" because the price signal is lost or distorted when it reaches the consumer. On this view, other
market failures beyond the existence of environmental externalities critically distort consumers choices. [*274] The Wrong Price -
Environmental Externalities & Perverse Subsidies The existence of environmental externalities is one very strong reason to engage in
energy efficiency. There is widespread agreement that environmental externalities exist in electricity generation. n28 Environmental
concerns are therefore a critical consideration in any electricity sector policy. This idea is hardly new. Electricity provision is expected
to be dependable and affordable for all potential consumers; profitable for the investor owned utilities; not environmentally damaging
in general; and, in particular, respectful of existing uses of communal environmental resources such as farmland that is downwind
from power plants or rivers used for both hydroelectric generation and transport. Since the dawn of electricity regulation, through the
National Energy Policy Act in the late 1970s, the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), and into the deregulatory era,
there have always been at least two stated goals for electricity policy: affordable power and environmental protection. n29 Admittedly,
affordability tends to dominate, but states and the FERC have used a variety of tools to promote environmental ends in electricity
policy. Those tools include certification and siting of plants, mandatory environmental impact analysis, resource planning, and
conservation measures. n30 The absence of environmental externalities in cost leads to price distortions. The price of fossil fuels
seems cheap relative to their social cost because part of their social cost is not included in the purchase price. Environmental
externalities can be divided into three categories. First, there are those externalities that we are aware of and can quantify with a
reasonably certain margin of error. Examples of this would be the negative health effects of nitrogen and sulfur oxides; ozone; large
sized, 10 microns and greater, particulate matter from fossil fuel combustion; or the injury, loss of life, and increased occurrence of
lung disease in coal miners.

Energy efficiency solves pollution and GHG emissions – reduces demand
Levine and Kendall, Senior Attorney Conservation Law Foundation and Ralph C. Menapace Fellow in Environmental and Land Use
Law, 2006 [Sandra and Katie Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Experiences LexisNexis fall 2006
Fu]

Energy efficiency and conservation also reduces pollution and other negative environmental effects. n9 Forty percent of the carbon
pollution in the United States is produced by power plants. n10 Achieving a high standard of energy efficiency avoids burning the
fossil fuels normally needed to meet increasing power needs, and therefore, allows our energy needs to be met at [*103] a lower cost
and with less environmental impact than continuing to build and buy more supply from new generation.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 21/165


                                         SOLVENCY – CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy efficiency successfully reduces energy consumption and prevents the need for new energy sources
Loh, New York Times staff writer, 11/29/2006
[Steve, "Efficiency efforts could sharply cut growth in energy consumption, study says ,"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/29/business/energy.php]

Growth in energy consumption worldwide could be cut by more than two-thirds over the next 15 years through more aggressive
energy- efficiency efforts by households and industry, according to a study released Wednesday by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The report says that energy savings could be achieved with current technology and would save money for consumers and companies,
and it offers a list of suggested steps, including the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs and solar water heaters, improved insulation
on new buildings, reduced standby power requirements, and an accelerated push for appliance-efficiency standards. Those moves,
among others, could reduce the yearly growth rate of energy demand through 2020 to 0.6 percent from a forecast annual rate of 2.2
percent, the report concludes. The estimate of potential energy savings is one conclusion of the yearlong research project by
McKinsey, which analyzed energy productivity worldwide by regions, fuels and industrial and residential markets. To take advantage
of energy-saving opportunities, some product standards would have to be tightened and some policy incentives changed. Current
regulations and fuel subsidies, for example, often favor consumption over efficiency. But many potential steps are not taken, the report
says, because energy users lack information or do not value efficiency enough to change their buying habits. "The opportunities are
huge, and yet they are being left on the table," said Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute, a research arm of the
McKinsey consulting firm. "Standard economics would say that energy prices would work their way through everything. But that's not
really the case, particularly in the consumer market." That is especially the case, according to other energy experts and executives, if
an energy-thrifty product has a slightly higher purchase price and the financial payoff for users takes a while. That helps explain the
slow progress made by compact fluorescent light bulbs in the marketplace. Years ago, these efficient light bulbs cost up to 10 times as
much as conventional incandescent bulbs, and their light had a somewhat different hue. But now, the light spectrum has been
corrected and compact fluorescents are only slightly more costly than conventional bulbs, yet they last 10 times as long and consume
75 percent less electricity. The overall financial advantage of using compact fluorescent bulbs is obvious and sizable, even if the initial
purchase price is higher. "One of the great mysteries is why the public has not shifted faster to fluorescent bulbs," said Alexander
Lidow, a physicist and the chief executive of International Rectifier, a maker of power management equipment for energy-efficient
appliances. Such shifts might go more quickly if electric utilities were encouraged to promote efficiency. Rate regulators see that
utilities are compensated for producing energy, but rarely for conserving it. A few U.S. states, notably California, allow electric
companies to pass through the costs of energy-saving programs, but they are the exceptions. "With changes in state regulation, we
could really stimulate energy efficiency," said James Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a big utility in the U.S. Midwest and
Southeast.
He added, "The most efficient and environmentally responsible plant you can build is the one that you don't build."


Energy Conservation Good – Minimizes inevitable impacts of conventional energy sources
Nichols 01, Ph.D, David
[ Senior Research Director of the Energy Group and Director of Energy Efficiency Programs at the Tellus Institute in Boston,
Massachusetts, "Symposium Presentation: The Role of Regulators: Energy Efficiency", Lexis]

Electricity generation has multiple and serious environmental impacts, all of which can be reduced through demand-side energy
efficiency. Sulfur oxide (SO<x>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<x>) air emissions are among pollutants of concern from a health standpoint.
Emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to warming of the global atmosphere and are the subject of national and international
discussions about how to avert climate change. Electricity generation requires both land for plant sites and water for cooling systems.
In addition, transmission lines require land. Any reduction in the amount of electricity supply over time will tend to reduce these
unavoidable impacts of electricity supply.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             22/165


                                         SOLVENCY – AIR POLLUTION

Excessive power use is directly linked to air pollution – energy efficiency is the best way to solve for air pollution because it
significantly reduces the amount of wasted electricity – that‘s Bernstein

Energy efficiency solves air pollution
Bernstein, USC Political Science Professor, USC Energy Institute Director, 2002
[Mark, Christopher Pernin, Sam Loeb and Mark Hanson,"the public benefit of energy efficiency to the state of Massachusetts,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1588/]
One of many environmental benefits associated with improved energy efficiency is the effect on air emissions. In our analysis, we
find that if energy intensity in the state had remained at 1977 levels, air emissions as a result of power consumption could be
approximately 11 percent greater than current levels. Massachusetts receives its power from various sources in the northeast, hence
the reductions in emissions are spread over the northeastern region. The pollution mitigated associated with reductions in energy
intensity over the study period is approximately the total amount emitted in 1997 (Figure S.2). While motor vehicles are the primary
contributors to air emissions, and the transportation sector has grown dramatically over the past 20 years, reductions in energy
intensity in the commercial and industrial sectors have allowed Massachusetts to slow the increase in emissions despite increases in
energy consumption throughout the state.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              23/165


                                              SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Energy efficiency solves the economy – reduces electricity prices, which then is added to people‘s income which they can then
put back into the economy in the form of consumer spending - that‘s the U.S. Department of Energy. And a mass overhaul of
the power grid would create mass numbers of jobs – solves back the economy.

Energy efficiency boosts the economy – reduces living costs causing more disposable income
Bernstein, USC Political Science Professor, USC Energy Institute Director, 2002
[Mark, Christopher Pernin, Sam Loeb and Mark Hanson,"the public benefit of energy efficiency to the state of Massachusetts,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1588/]

Unlike energy intensity and GSP in the industrial and commercial sectors, there is no easily quantifiable parameter with which to
evaluate the benefits of energy efficiency to the residential sector. Furthermore, statewide economic benefits of reduced energy
consumption in the residential sector are uncertain: Modest increases in disposable income may not manifest themselves as large-
scale economic benefits to the state. It is clear, however, that investments in energy efficiency do reduce household energy costs and
that these investments are cost- effective. In Massachusetts, improvements in residential energy intensity and energy prices have
reduced the average energy expenditures per capita in real terms from $860 in 1977 to $646 in 1997. These benefits accrue to
Massachusetts‘s residents.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              24/165


                                              SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Energy Efficiency solves economic growth
US Department Of Energy, The Jobs Connection: Energy Use and Local Economic Development, 1996, bansal

Several local and state governments have analyzed actual and projected economic development effects of energy efficiency or
alternative energy projects. A sampling of their findings is listed on the next page.
The Environmental Services Department, San Jose, California, estimated that $33 million in incremental wages and salaries would be
generated from an investment program implementing energy efficiency measures. The investment program consisted of $654,350
from the city, which stimulated an $8.5-million private sector investment in energy efficiency measures. Net employment would
increase by 1753 job-years, and local spending would increase by $20.8 million. The initial energy savings was estimated to be $4.3
million.
The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources reports that the state has realized a 257% job growth in energy efficiency firms,
such as energy service companies (see Financing Local Energy Efficiency Projects, part of this Cities and Counties fact sheet series),
between 1988 and 1992, indicating vigorous business growth.
The Wisconsin Energy Bureau recently found that the use of renewable energy generates about three times more jobs, earnings, and
sales output in Wisconsin than the same level of imported fossil fuel use and investment. Given a 75% increase in the state‘s
renewable energy use, the Bureau found that the state would realize more than 62,000 new jobs, $1.2 billion in new wages, and $4.6
billion in new sales for Wisconsin businesses. The state currently imports about 94% of its energy.
The wind energy industry presently supports more than 50 businesses in California; 1200 people are employed directly in these
businesses, and another 4300 jobs have been created indirectly, nearly all related to operating, maintaining, and servicing wind
turbines.
From just biomass alone, 66,000 jobs are already supported in the United States, a great many in rural areas. By 2010, biomass power
could support more than 283,000 U.S. jobs.

Energy efficiency proven to solve economic growth
US Department Of Energy, The Jobs Connection: Energy Use and Local Economic Development, 1996, bansal

The economic and employment impacts associated with the purchase of energy represent a potent area of opportunity for local
governments. Yet many governments are not aware that energy purchases and use can have far-reaching effects on their communities‘
economic well-being. Some local governments are learning to better leverage their energy dollars.
In Osage, Iowa, the city Municipal Utilities Department successfully implemented an energy efficiency program in 1975 (see Energy
Efficiency Strengthens Local Economies, part of this Cities and Counties fact sheet series). The principal beneficiary of the program
has been the town‘s economy. Today, unemployment is half the national average. While most of this country‘s rural and small-town
economies have been struggling in recent years, the Osage economy is getting stronger, and firms are moving to Osage. And several
Osage businesses, such as Fox River Mills, are experiencing exemplary growth after participating in the town‘s energy efficiency
program. Fox River Mills has reduced the energy cost of producing a pair of socks, their primary product, by 29% since 1984. The
plant, which employed 110 workers in 1984, employs 310 people today.
As John Lessard, president of Fox River Mills (one of the area‘s largest employers) states, ―Energy efficiency improvements have
helped to reduce our production costs and have led to business growth. This, in turn, is good for our local economic and employment
picture.‖ And, says Pam Schaefer-Smith, president of the Osage Chamber of Commerce, ―Our community and business environment
has benefited from energy efficiency improvements in terms of local economic health.‖




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                25/165


                                                SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Improving energy efficiency solves for losses of 19 billion dollars every year
ABB 2007: Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid.
http://www02.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/64cee3203250d1b7c12572c8003b2b48/$FILE
/Energy%20efficiency%20in%20the%20power%20grid.pdf
The transmission and distribution or ―T&D‖ system, then, includes everything between a generation plant and an end-use site. Along
the way, some of the energy supplied by the generator is lost due to the resistance of the wires and equipment that the electricity
passes through. Most of this energy is converted to heat. Just how much energy is taken up as losses in the T&D system depends
greatly on the physical characteristics of the system in question as well as how it is operated. Generally speaking, T&D losses between
6% and 8% are considered normal. It is possible to calculate what this means in dollar terms by looking at the difference between the
amount of electric energy generated and the amount actually sold at the retail level. According to data from the Energy Information
Administration, net generation in the US came to over 3.9 billion megawatt hours (MWh) in 2005 while retail power sales during that
year were about 3.6 billion MWh. T&D losses amounted to 239 million MWh, or 6.1% of net generation. Multiplying that number by
the national average retail price of electricity for 2005, we can estimate those losses came at a cost to the US economy of just under
$19.5 billion.

An inefficienct power grid costs the economy 8 billion per year and all of that cost is shifted to consumers
David Johnston (reporter NYT) 12/13/2006: Grid limitations increases prices for electricity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/business/13power.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1165986000&en=b8ad2b8825ee9734&ei=5094&partner
=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It is a tiny, flickering signal of an expensive problem looming for tens of millions of Americans: The cost of electricity for households
in this southern Pennsylvania town soared this year by 31 percent, or an average of $24 a month. Like the nation‘s highways and
bridges, the network of transmission lines has not been maintained and expanded enough to meet growing demand, the United States
Department of Energy says. In areas where there are not enough lines to transmit electricity from the most efficient generating
stations, utilities must find other sources. Sometimes they have to buy from costlier power plants nearby, like drivers forced by
highway bottlenecks onto slower side roads. The problem already affects about 40 million people from metropolitan New York to
Virginia as well as 18 million in Southern California. Similar but smaller price increases will hit New England, the San Francisco Bay
Area and the Seattle-Portland and Phoenix-Tucson corridors until new transmission lines are built. These higher costs, known as
congestion charges, added $5.7 million to the cost of electricity in Chambersburg this year, which the borough has paid from a reserve
fund rather than apply them directly to utility bills. Over all, the Energy Department estimates, congestion charges in 2008 will add $8
billion or so — about $40 a person — to electricity costs on the Eastern grid, which serves almost 200 million people east of the
Rockies except for Texas. The department did not make an estimate for the Western grids. These congestion charges would raise
electricity prices by about a nickel on the dollar if they were spread evenly, but in fact some customers pay far more and others pay
nothing. Sometimes there is disagreement on how to measure congestion charges. The Energy Department estimates these charges for
New York residents in the New York City area at almost $90 each last year, while the operators of the electricity network for the state
say the cost was about $8. The extra charges could continue for years, because building new transmission lines can take at least a
decade. The congested transmission network has frustrated the many who supported the opening of the electricity industry to
competition a decade ago, hoping that prices would fall. Under the old system, regulated monopolies made and delivered power in
their own area, with only small sales outside. The new system is intended to encourage a competitive business in which power is
distributed over vast regional networks. But for electric prices to fall, the network must be able to move power from the lowest-cost
plants to where it is needed, utility industry experts said. ―Fully competitive markets and the tremendous added value that could be
provided to customers have been stalled‖ by a transmission network that is too small and was not designed for competitive markets,
three executives of National Grid, an electricity distribution company, wrote last year in The Electricity Journal. The North American
Electric Reliability Council, which works to improve the network, echoed the comments of many industry leaders in declaring that ―a
robust, reliable transmission system is needed to develop a competitive market‖ that can save customers money.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              26/165


                                                      AT: SPENDING

Increased energy efficiency would begin to pay for itself within ten years
Levine and Kendall, Senior Attorney Conservation Law Foundation and Ralph C. Menapace Fellow in Environmental and Land Use
Law, 2006
[Sandra and Katie Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Experiences LexisNexis fall 2006 Fu]

In addition to technological tools, regulatory and market structures can also help overcome barriers to acquiring more efficiency
resources. One tool to acquire efficiency resources is the establishment of an energy [*109] efficiency program, funded by a systems
benefit charge (SBC). An SBC is defined as a non-bypassable charge on a consumer's electric bill to pay for the costs of certain public
benefits, such as low-income assistance and energy efficiency. n51 The amount of the SBC can vary state to state, and ranges from less
than one-tenth of a cent per kWh to up to four-tenths of a cent per kWh. n52 Approximately 20 states have an efficiency program
funded by an SBC, but many fund only a small portion of the available and cost-effective energy efficiency resources. n53 For
example, a 2002 study in Vermont found that increasing the current spending on energy efficiency by a multiple of 10 over the next 10
years would still acquire cost-effective energy efficiency resources. n54 Likewise, when California significantly increased its funding
for an efficiency program, it determined the efficiency measures would save enough electricity to avoid building three 500 MW power
plants. n55




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                27/165


                                AT: EFFICIENCY  MORE CONSUMPTION

1. Efficiency solves – the counterplan solves the reason we consume so much energy through boosting productivity – That‘s
1NC Farrell and Halstead

2. US efficiency gains empirically decrease consumption
Rocky Mountain Institute, staff writer, 5/1/2008
["Beating the Energy Efficiency Paradox (Part I)," http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/beating-energy-efficiency-paradox.php]

Today's popularity of more efficient vehicles and green home retrofits means it is worth seriously considering if there is evidence for
Jevons' Paradox -- or even a significant rebound effect -- that could dampen some of the enthusiasm for these technologies.
Luckily, we are observing only very small rebound effects (if any at all) in the United States. For example, we can look at household
driving patterns: While total vehicle miles traveled have increased 16 percent between 1991 and 2001, there is no evidence that
owners of hybrid vehicles drove twice as much just because their cars were twice as efficient.
For green buildings the evidence is very similar. From many case studies related to RMI's Built Environment work, we have not seen
evidence that radically more efficient commercial buildings cause people to leave the lights on all night and set their office thermostats
five degrees lower. In fact, energy savings in everything from office towers to schools have often been higher than projected. People
do not seem to change their behaviors simply because they have a more efficient building.
Household appliances provide the best example that efficiency gains really do stick. Take refrigerators (which can use as much as 14
percent of a household's total energy). Until the late 1970s, the average size of our refrigerators increased steadily and then began
leveling off. But, during the same period, the energy those refrigerators used started to decline rapidly. Today's Energy Star
refrigerators are 40 percent more efficient than those sold even seven years ago. After all, there is a maximum size to the refrigerator
you can easily put in a kitchen and a limit to the number of refrigerators you need in your house. In short, improvements in efficiency
have greatly outpaced our need for more and larger storage spaces.
So far, the evidence from the field of more efficient technologies is good. In the United States, energy efficiency actually works when
it's allowed to compete fairly in the market.
On a more macro-level, some states have posted impressive efficiency gains by paying attention to their use and investing to decrease
consumption. According to RMI co-founder and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins, Vermont has reduced energy use per household in
recent years. And California, he adds, "has held per-capita electricity use flat for 30 years -- saving 65 peak GW and more than $100
billion of power-system investment -- while per-capita real income rose 79 percent."

Prefer our evidence –
    - First, specificity to US consumption patterns
    - Second, empirical data comes before theoretical arguments




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             28/165


                                                AT: ALT ENERGY KEY

1. Efficiency solves the need for alternative energy – current tech can drastically increase productivity reducing consumption
levels, resolving the need for the plan, the incentive is key to widespread adoption which their evidence does not assume

2. The counterplan solves and spills up to the plan – a shift to efficiency sparks investment in alternative energy and reduces
GHG emissions and energy dependence
Hymel, Arizona University Law Professor, Fall 2006
[Mona, ARTICLE: The United States' Experience with Energy-Based Tax Incentives: The Evidence Supporting Tax Incentives for
Renewable Energy," 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 43]

Yet the potential for improved energy efficiency in the United States is immense. n214 One report states that with existing cost-
effective energy efficiency improvements, electricity demand could be reduced by eleven to twenty-three percent below projected
levels for 2010, and possibly up to thirty-five percent by 2020. n215 In fact, data on energy [*77] efficiency and conservation
activities from 1973 through 1991 revealed an eighteen percent reduction in energy use from previous projections, saving about $ 150
billion annually in total domestic energy expenditures. n216 In terms of environmental quality, one study estimated that by
implementing a number of recently proposed conservation programs, annual carbon emissions would be reduced by about 3.5% and
nontransportation energy consumption would be reduced by about 6%. n217 Energy efficiency policies, which address the demand
side of the energy equation, are an inexpensive means to address the environmental and national security problems associated with
fossil fuel use. The energy savings alone typically cover the cost associated with the policy change.
Tax incentives can help increase the market for new energy efficient products by reducing their cost and lowering the risk of
production for manufacturers. n218 As a result of tax incentives, the public benefits from lower energy use, environmental quality
improvements, and enhanced energy security. n219 One study estimated that tax incentives for new energy efficient homes, energy
efficient upgrades to existing homes, and energy efficient upgrades to new and existing commercial buildings could save eleven
quadrillion Btus of energy through 2025, ultimately saving consumers over $ 88 billion during the same period. n220
On the positive side, the government's cost to implement the tax incentives included in the 2005 Energy Tax Incentive Act is far less
than it will realize from the energy efficiency improvements, not including the cost savings from environmental quality improvements.
n221 Moreover, tax deductions and credit for energy conservation could significantly increase the likelihood that individuals and
businesses will invest in alternative fuel technologies. n222 To the extent that policy [*78] makers are able to identify incentives
that encourage environmentally sound behavior and result in both environmental and monetary savings, Congress must be more
proactive in adopting such incentives.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               29/165


                  POLITICS – UNPOPULAR (PERM LINKS TO OBAMA GOOD)

Legislation on grid efficiency alone is popular but when combined with other programs it becomes unpopular
Katherine Morrison and David Willet (reporters) 8/11/2004: Year after largest blackout in U.S. history, Bush Administration and
congress have done nothing to prevent future blackouts says new radio ad. http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0811-11.htm
Since the Aug. 14, 2003, blackout, the Bush and Administration and Congressional leaders have held reliability standards hostage to
passage of the energy bill, H.R. 6, which contains $31 billion in taxpayer handouts to industry. It would encourage more oil drilling,
coal consumption, and nuclear power. More than 100 newspapers have editorialized in opposition to H.R. 6, including The Akron
Beacon Journal, Dayton Daily New, Detroit News, Kalamazoo Gazette, Toledo Blade, and The Wall Street Journal. The House of
Representatives passed the bill twice, but the Senate blocked it twice. Despite the fact that it leaves consumers more vulnerable to
blackouts, proponents of H.R. 6 may use the anniversary of the blackout as an excuse to revive it.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced stand-alone reliability legislation, H.R. 3004 and S.
2014, and that would be a good first step to make the electric grid more reliable. Instead, Congressional leaders continue to promote
the failed policies in H.R. 6, which does little to increase the reliability, renewability, or efficiency of our electricity.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              30/165


                                                POLITICS – POPULAR

Energy efficiency is popular – consumers don‘t want to pay for alternative energy
Johnson, UC Berkeley Linguistics Professor, 5/19/08
[Keith, ―Reality Check: Consumers Unlikely to Pay Much More for Green,‖ The Wall Street Journal, bansal]

The smart money these days seems to agree that fighting climate change won‘t be expensive—for the economy as a whole, that is.
Which is known as ―macroeconomic‖ buck-passing. At the ―microeconomic‖ level, electricity rates will rise a lot. And that is exactly
what a lot of people don‘t need right now.
Here‘s the deal, courtesy of a new set of surveys from Deloitte. Consumers are already wigging out over electricity costs—53% are
―very concerned,‖ and another 30% describe their monthly gasp as they open the power bill as ―somewhat concerned.‖
Things are going to get worse. Deloitte asked state power regulators what will happen to prices next year. When the chuckling
subsided, 87% said prices will rise. That can be variously chalked up to higher fuel costs (35%), new environmental regulations
(23%), or higher capital costs (21%).
People really don‘t want to pay much more each month to stop global warming, regardless of how many movies Al Gore makes. One-
third of Deloitte respondents said they‘d be prepared to pay ―zero‖ extra to fight global warming. Slightly more, 36%, said they‘d
cough up 5% more if it meant their juice was emissions-free—5% being what you leave a really lousy waiter. About a quarter of the
1,000 adults Deloitte interviewed said they‘d be willing to add 10% or more to their power bill for clean energy. Here‘s the bad news:
The main climate-change proposal in Congress could add between 11% and 64% to those bills to reduce emissions.
Another interesting factoid from the Deloitte survey: Energy efficiency is the best, but more than 60% of consumers also put their
faith in ―clean coal‖ to produce clean energy. Just over half also figure nuclear power will be in the mix. But among utilities
regulators, the idea of capturing coal‘s carbon emissions and sticking them in the ground was roundly criticized—more than 40% of
utilities commissioners said the still-unproven technology would do little to reduce emissions in their states. They think energy
efficiency and nuclear power, backed up by renewable energy, is the key to cutting emissions in the future.
But at least they have their customers down cold: 31% said none of their ratepayers would pay a dime to fight climate change.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              31/165


                                              POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

New transmission lines are viewed as unpopular
David Johnston (reporter NYT) 12/13/2006: Grid limitations increases prices for electricity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/business/13power.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1165986000&en=b8ad2b8825ee9734&ei=5094&partner
=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A federal proposal to invoke these restrictions for a proposed high-voltage line through the Allegheny Mountains in Virginia has
generated hundreds of complaints. Business owners, local officials and refugees from big cities said it would be irresponsible to mar
their mountain vistas and small towns with a row of 17-story steel skeletons supporting the lines.
Protests are also expected against proposed transmission lines from two nuclear plants in Arizona to Southern California and against a
1,000-mile line that Arizona Public Service plans so it would be able to cool Phoenix with electricity from wind farms and coal-fired
plants in Wyoming.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       32/165


                                  *** READINESS COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                33/165


                                                   READINESS CP 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Department of Defense should fund the Joint Vision 2020 Focused Logistics Program
using Electric Product Code automatic identification.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Readiness
And, an EPC program solves every internal link to readiness-Visibility and Supply Chains are key to maintaining readiness on
the battlefield
Daniel Engels et al 4 (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans, policies,
doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)
The EPC system is being adopted as a standard in the commercial sector and could be applicable to the military as well. A military-
commercial interface would allow all military suppliers to use the same standardized system to identify objects. Use of the EPC
system would help improve the U.S. military's readiness for war by providing DOD with unprecedented visibility and control of the
supply chain. DOD Supply Chain In many ways, the DOD supply chain is similar to the supply chains of commercial suppliers
because many of the products and supplies contained within the DOD supply chain are also available commercially. However,
differences in optimization criteria lead to a number of characteristics that set the DOD supply chain apart from the commercial supply
chain. Some of the most important of these differentiating characteristics follow. Readiness. The primary purpose of optimizing the
military supply chain is to enhance readiness for war. Knowing the location and status of all materials needed to support operations is
an essential component of readiness. Long supply lines. War is an international activity, which means that lines of supply to support
operations are long. Without auto-ID technology that provides real-time visibility of items moving from the suppliers to the front-line
troops, it is extremely difficult to maintain accurate knowledge of supply-chain-wide inventories. Variety of items. Military operations
require a large number of items, ranging from everyday supplies to food and clothing to specialized equipment. Different categories of
items have different standards for inventory accuracy and visibility. Unstable demand. Military demand is often variable and
unpredictable because conflicts can happen anywhere in the world at any time. When a conflict occurs, demand for supplies increases
dramatically and existing stockpiles of materiel are depleted quickly. Accurate inventories are critical to maintaining readiness in the
presence of variable demand. Moving end points. The end, or destination, points of the military supply chain generally move forward
with advancing troops and are either terminated or transformed, creating additional difficulties for transportation and inventory
management. Priority. The military supply chain operates on priorities set by unit commanders based on urgency of need. Equipment
reliability and maintenance. Military operations take place in all types of environments and on all kinds of terrain. Under battle
conditions, it is important that all identification technologies work effectively and that system maintenance is minimal. Detection. In a
theater of operations, the military must always be careful not to divulge information about its position that would be advantageous to
the enemy. The problems that have resulted in the past from these characteristics of the DOD supply chain often were exacerbated by
poor inventory visibility. The use of auto-ID systems that are customized to accommodate the peculiar aspects of the DOD supply
chain can significantly reduce the recurrence of these problems.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                34/165


                                              SOLVENCY – READINESS

Counterplan Solves Readiness Comparatively Better- than the Case-we solve your IL

    1.   Visibility-Knowledge of Supply Lines Locations is key to providing troops with the needed equipment rapidly-long
         supply lines crush readiness and make it possible to fight asymmetrical warfare
    2.   Stealth-Identification Technology is key to maintain secrecy of operations-this moots all military muscle because the
         enemy can prepare strategic counter-attacks
    3.   We Solve Your Internal Link-Long supply lines lead to stagnation of soldiers-waiting due to supply shortages crushes
         troop morale

     4. Equipment Repair
Daniel Engels et al 4       (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans, policies,
doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

Any large-scale repair Operation is complex because it is difficult to predict demand for spare parts. In military repair operations,
expensive parts are given high priority and customer wait time is usually very short. However, inexpensive parts are often critical to
completing a repair. These parts are usually assigned a lower priority, which often causes them to be delayed in shipment. In turn, this
causes delays in the entire repair cycle. Military planners often increase the total fleet size to compensate for lengthy repair
times.Readiness and MobilityCombat forces must be ready to engage in a conflict and they must be able to move to the conflict
location quickly. Troop readiness is determined in part by equipment readiness, and equipment readiness hinges on proper repair and
maintenance. Mobility is determined primarily by the quantity of materiel that must be moved and the number of transport vehicles
available to carry it. In general, the smaller the inventory required to travel with a force, the greater its mobility. Accurate data on
inventory quantities and locations enables logistics support systems to transport a greater quantity of items, thereby reducing the
inventory of forward-positioned troops while increasing their mobility.


     5. Tracking
Daniel Engels et al 4         (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans,
policies, doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

The lack of a single, standardized auto-ID system severely limits the tracking of assets as they move through the supply chain from the
supplier to the troops. Similarly, the visibility of objects flowing back through the supply chain is limited. The inability to track
individual items negatively affects all supply-chain-related applications, including repair and maintenance, identification of failure-
prone parts, and the ability to perform predictive maintenance.

     6. Military-Civilian Cooperation
Daniel Engels et al 4         (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans,
policies, doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

 By using the same standard as industry, DOD will be able to communicate with commercial vendors and have direct visibility of
inventories at civilian locations. An active military-civilian interface also will give vendors and military planners the opportunity to
collaborate on ways to enhance readiness for war. Precise inventory levels by version will be possible with the EPC system. (A part
number is not unique because a new number is not assigned each time an engineering change is made. Therefore, an inventory of
spare parts for equipment that has a long life cycle often includes many different versions of a part as changes are made over the life
of the equipment.) Civilian warehouses will be able to assist the military in stockpiling enough supplies to sustain several
simultaneous war scenarios. This could take the form of maintaining "warm" inventories that are reserved for military operations, yet
continue to cycle into normal shipments. This practice would reduce losses resulting from exceeding shelf-life limits. Using inventory
pooling between civilian and military organizations would significantly reduce waste and improve readiness.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  35/165


                                               READINESS KEY TO HEG

Military readiness key to heg
Jack Spencer, policy analyst at Heritage, 9/15/2000, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG 1394.cfm
The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover,
regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security
Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives, 3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability
to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale. cross- border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames." 4
According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant
of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff
General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater
war strategy. 5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have
even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War. 6 Military readiness is vital
because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United s.tates is not prepared to defend its
interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests. inevitably
leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from
acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest. thereby preserving peace.

Readiness is key to U.S. hegemony.
Donnelly, 2003---Resident Scholar at AEI (Thomas, Resident Scholar at AEI, 2/1. ttp://www.aei.org/publications
/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp)
The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of strength. The variety
of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility of directly challenging the United
States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a weakness in the American global order. Convincing
would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of
rule that come with it--requires not only an overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when
the danger is imminent. The message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that
underlies the logic of primacy.

Recruits and personnel are the basis of US readiness- solves nuclear war
CNAS, 2008 (Center for a New American Security, ―Strengthening the Readiness of the U.S. Military‖, Prepared Statement of
Michèle A. Flournoy)
At the same time, the United States must prepare for a broad range of future contingencies, from sustained, small-unit irregular
warfare missions to military-to-military training and advising missions to high-end warfare against regional powers armed with
weapons of mass destruction and other asymmetric means. Yet compressed training times between deployments mean that many
of our enlisted personnel and officers have the time to train only for the missions immediately before them—in Iraq and
Afghanistan—and not for the missions over the horizon. These just-in-time training conditions have created a degree of strategic
risk, which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted in his recent posture statement. As we at the Center for a New
American Security wrote in our June, 2007 report on the ground forces, the United States is a global power with global interests,
and we need our armed forces to be ready to respond whenever and wherever our strategic interests might be threatened. The
absence of an adequate strategic reserve of ready ground forces must be addressed on an urgent basis. Readiness is the winning
combination of personnel, equipment, and training in adequate quantity and quality for each unit. Each of these components of
readiness has been under sustained and increasing stress over the past several years. For the ground forces, the readiness picture
is largely—although not solely—centered on personnel while the Navy and the Air Force‘s readiness challenges derive primarily
from aging equipment. The Army continues to experience the greatest strain and the greatest recruitment challenges.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       36/165


                                     *** GHITMO COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 37/165


                                                       GHITMO 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should end the use of the Guantánamo Bay military base as a
detention facility

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Soft Power
Counterplan solves soft power through international perception
Dianne Feinstein. 1.6.2009. ―S. 147: A bill to require the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to limit the use
of certain interrogation techniques, to prohibit interrogation by contractors, to require notification of the International‖ Federation of
American Scientists. U.S. Senator (Democrat. California) Congressional Record. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_cr/s147.html
As was made crystal clear on last November 4, we need change and we need a new direction. When it comes to the war on
terrorism, we need to disavow ``the Dark Side'' so embraced by the Bush administration. Instead, we need to follow our approach
honed through the Cold War: standing by the strength of our values and ideals, building strong partnerships with allies, and
mixing soft power with the force of our military might. This legislation would put us back on the right track and I believe it to
be fully consistent with the policies and intentions of President-elect Obama. It is time to end the failed experiment at
Guantanamo Bay. It is time to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the outsourcing of coercive
interrogations to outside mercenaries. It is time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United States to greatness
since the days of George Washington, but have been tarnished in the past 7 years. First, this legislation requires the President to
close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay within 12 months. The need to close Guantanamo is clear. Along with the
abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo has been decried as American hypocrisy and cruelty throughout the world. They have given
aid in recruiting to our enemies, and have been named by Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora as the leading causes of death to
U.S. troops in Iraq. Numerous reports, most recently one completed and approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, have documented the abusive methods used at Guantanamo. Beyond the physical, psychological, and emotional
abuse witnessed at Guantanamo, it has been the source of great legal embarrassment. The Supreme Court has struck down the
Bush administration's legal reasoning four separate times: in the Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene decisions. It was
explicitly created to be a separate and lesser system of justice, to hold people captured on or near the battlefield in Afghanistan
indefinitely. It has produced exactly three convictions, including Australian David Hicks who agreed to a plea bargain to get off
the island, and Osama bin Ladin's driver, Salim Hamdan, who has already served almost all of his sentence through time already
spent at Guantanamo.

(__) Terrorism
Terrorism is the result of the US refusal to close gitmo
The Independent, 2006 (The Independent, ―Beckett says Guantanamo Bay camp should be closed down,‖
10/13/06, Lexis)
 International terrorism could be fuelled by anger over the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, the
Government has admitted for the first time. Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, made the most strident British demand yet for its
closure, but faced immediate accusations of hypocrisy for refusing to intervene on behalf of UK residents incarcerated there. She
warned that the camp was as much a "rad-icalising and destabilising influence" as it was an aid in the "war on terror". Mrs Beckett
moved to distance the Government from the White House as she launched the Foreign Office annual report on international human
rights. She said: "We believe that camp should close. The continuing detention without fair trial of prisoners is unacceptable in terms
of human rights, but it is also ineffective in terms of counter-terrorism." Her comments are the latest in a string of evermore strongly
worded criticism of the Bush administration over Guantanamo Bay. The Foreign Office report described the camp as "unacceptable"
in an extensive section on the American naval base, which is still holding about 450 terror suspects without trial.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 38/165


                                                      GHITMO 1NC 2/2

(__) Human Rights
Gitmo devastates US human rights leadership
Guardian. 11-19-08. ―Closing Gitmo Is Just the Beginning‖Common Dreams. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/19-6
During his first television interview after winning the White House, president-elect Barack Obama reiterated his long-standing
promise to shut Guantánamo Bay. Since the historic vote, legal and policy circles, journalists and human rights activists have hummed
about when and how the notorious prison's doors will slam shut once and for all, and what will happen to some 250 detainees still held
there. While the incoming president and his team are right to put Guantánamo at the top of their priority list, when it comes to
restoring American leadership on human rights, closing the prison is only a first step. Guantánamo has become an emblem of the
erosion of US legitimacy on human rights issues over the last eight years. Because it is under direct US control, is near US shores and
has been the site of abusive interrogations and years of indefinite detention without charge, the prison has been a focal point for public
outrage both at home and abroad.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                39/165


                                                  AT: GHITMO CLOSED

Obama failed – military trials started back up, further devastating US soft power
BBC News. 5.15.09. ―Obama 'to revive military trials‖ BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8051275.stm
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at
Guantanamo Bay. But legal rights for defendants facing the military commissions will be significantly improved, officials said.
President Obama halted the trials as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of
respecting human rights. The decision to revive the military trials has angered civil rights groups. There are currently 241
detainees still at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Obama has pledged to close the camp by January 2010.
'Disappointing' Administration officials told journalists that President Obama would announce plans to restart the military
commissions - but with improved rights for detainees. They are reported to include restrictions on hearsay evidence; a ban on
evidence obtained by cruel treatment; giving detainees more leeway to choose their own lawyers; and protecting detainees who
refuse to testify.     Q&A: Closing Guantanamo 'Struggle' over Guantanamo            President Obama is expected to ask for a further
four-month delay for the trials so that the new procedures can be implemented. Some rights groups reacted with dismay to the
news. They campaigned throughout the Bush administration for the military trials to be scrapped. "It's disappointing that Obama
is seeking to revive rather than end this failed experiment," said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union. "There's
no detainee at Guantanamo who cannot be tried and shouldn't be tried in the regular federal courts system." President Obama
himself had criticised the military commission system during his election campaign, describing it as "an enormous failure". But,
his aides pointed out on Thursday, the president never rejected the possibility of using military commissions altogether if they
could be made fairer. They highlighted legislation he supported as a senator in 2006 which was intended to do just that. The
BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the president may have decided that trying detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
- the man who allegedly planned 9/11 - in a civilian court in the US would be simply too complex and too difficult. It is thought
that only around 20 of the current detainees are likely to be tried through the revived military commissions, our correspondent
says. The remaining Guantanamo detainees are expected to either be released, transferred to other countries or tried by civilian
prosecutors in US federal courts.

Congress is blocking Obama‘s proposal to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay – it will remain open indefinitely
absent the CP
Nico Hines. 5.20.09. ―Fresh blow for Obama after Senate defeat over Guantánamo Bay.‖ Times Online. Nico is a staff writer for the
Times Online. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6326589.ece
President Obama‘s high-profile pledge to shut Guantánamo Bay was shot down by his own party today when Senate Democrats
voted to block the transfer of detainees and refused to pay for the closure. The blow is the latest setback for the Obama
Administration, which has already disappointed supporters by announcing that controversial military tribunals for detainees, set up
by President Bush but halted by Mr Obama on taking office, will be re-started. Senators denied the request for $80 million to
move the 240 detainees from the US military base in Cuba. They also voted 90 to six to prevent the Administration from
transferring any of the facility‘s prisoners to the US. The administration put its Democratic allies in a difficult spot by requesting
the Guantanamo closure money before developing a plan for what to do with its detainees. Harry Reid, the Democrat Majority
Leader, insisted that none of Guantánamo‘s detainees should be sent to the US to stand trial or serve prison sentences. ―We don‘t
want them around,‖ he said. ―I can‘t make it any more clear. . . We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.‖
The Senate block, echoing a similar move by the House of Representatives, threatens to paralyse the Obama Administration‘s key
pledge to shut down the military camp by January. Congress's attitude may force the detention facility to remain in operation
indefinitely. The snub to the Administration follows a sustained Republican effort to overturn Obama‘s executive order to close
Guantánamo Bay. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader and Republican senator for Kentucky, said: ―Guantánamo is the perfect
place for these terrorists.‖ Some Democrats and moderate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, agree that it is time to
close the facility, where detainees can be held for years without being charged, but claim that the closure plan has been bungled.
Mr McCain said: ―The lack of a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan led to a predictable political backlash on Guantánamo. . .
Instead of unifying Americans behind a plan that keeps us safe and honours our values, the Administration‘s course of action has
unified the opposition to moving forward and move forward we must.‖ Under the separation of powers outlined in the US
Constitution, Congress has control over almost all government spending. Thus, it can stop virtually any programme by refusing to
provide money to carry it out. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said the President would outline ―a hefty part‖ of
his plans for Guantánamo detainees tomorrow. A key segment of the Justice Department‘s plan has been to send many detainees
abroad, but if Congress were to bar detainees from being transported to the United States, even for trial, it would become much
more difficult to persuade other countries to accept them.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              40/165


                                           SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

Closing Gitmo is key to restoring U.S. soft power – our horrendous torture of detainees, many of whom are not really
terrorists tanks our global credibility – we control the greater internal link, because while Gitmo is still open, the U.S. will
never be respected in the international arena – that‘s Feinstein

Closing gitmo heals US soft power
Melinda Brouwer, 6.29.09. ―The roots of Obamamania.‖ Public Diplomacy. Melinda Brower holds a Masters degree in Global
Politics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She received her bachelor's degree in Political Science and
Spanish at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She received a graduate diploma in International Relations from the University of
Chile during her tenure as a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholar. She has worked on Capitol Hill, at the State Department, for Foreign
Policy magazine and the American Academy of Diplomacy. She presently works for an internationally focused non-profit research
organization in Washington, DC. http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/06/29/the-roots-of-obamanaia/
  ―Any new administration must work under the assumption that whatever honeymoon the outside world will have with a ―non-
George Bush‖ in the White House will be short-lived. Though Obama is generally well liked overseas, foreign leaders and publics
do harbour concerns about his experience and prejudices about his ethnic background. In an era of instant communication - and
revelations - no national leader today can expect permanent world popularity.
 The new administration should also not give overseas audiences the false hope that its arrival on the world scene will mean a
sudden, drastic departure from the policies of Bush, despite his low reputation at home and abroad. The American political system,
which leads presidential candidates to adopt ―centrist‖ positions, leaves the options for restructuring American foreign policy
limited. This includes Iraq, a fiasco that will take years to settle.
 While not pretending to offer a totally revamped foreign policy, the upcoming administration should, however, immediately focus
on results-oriented overseas initiatives (such as closing Guantanamo, allowing far more Iraqi refugees into the US and making US
embassies appear less like fortresses) that would win the approval of world foreign opinion. Unconditional overseas disaster-relief
assistance, including for food, should be given the highest priority, making sure such aid is not a one-shot, made-for-US-TV
publicity stunt, but a firm commitment to help countries in distress for as long as America can.‖This is a very important and
sobering reminder of what challenges lies ahead for the next president–whether he be Obama or McCain. Brown goes on to give
important advice for how to restore American's ―soft power‖ in the next administration.
 But his comments that Obama might be ―leading the world on‖ to think a new President will be a fix-all for the US‘ image woes
leads me to ponder what the world really expects from the next President. Is the ―Obamania‖ from abroad spiked by Obama's
policies or his symbolism? If the latter case is true, Obama's foreign supporters might not be as dissappointed as those in America
if he didn't enact these policies. In that case they may not feel that they have been given false hopes after all, since they were
paying attention to the person, not the policies, all along.
 It all comes down to this: are global publics more impressed when the US implements foreign policies they deem responsible, or
when the US simply elects a leader they deem responsible? How do we differentiate how much the world likes Obama for who he
is, rather than what he stands to change? Furthermore, how can we tell how much the world loves Obama simply because he
represents break from the past?




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  41/165


                                             SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

Closing Gitmo is a symbolic gesture that restores other nations‘ confidence, restoring soft power
Prieto and Waxman. 2.6.2009. Daniel B. Prieto is the Adjunct Senior Fellow For Counterterrorism And National Security, Council
on Foreign Relations. Matthew C. Waxman is the Adjunct Senior Fellow For Law And Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations.
―Closure Of The Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp.‖ Council of Foreign Relations. Interview Transcript. Interviewed by Robert
McMahon, Deputy Editor, CFR.org. http://66.40.21.148/publication/18493/closure_of_the_guantanamo_bay_prison_camp.html

I have a question about the symbolism that President Obama's decision on Guantanamo may have, in the foreign policy, the U.S.
foreign policy. And because Guantanamo is in a Latin American country -- is located in a Latin American country, would you find
any kind of symbolism in -- from Obama to Latin Americans? MCMAHON: Well, this focuses a little bit more on the question
we talked about at the outset, of the importance of this as a gesture first and foremost, and considering what -- how foreign policy
has been, perhaps, tarnished. Matthew, maybe you first, and Daniel, briefly, on both?
WAXMAN: Yeah. I mean, I would just begin by saying that symbolism is important here, and the United States has a lot of work
to do in rebuilding its reputation and credibility, especially on issues related to the rule of law.
 I mean, one, I think, unfortunate consequence -- or sort of collateral damage -- of the -- of the Bush administration's approaches at
Guantanamo was to damage U.S. credibility and leadership in promoting certain legal principles abroad, legal principles of a
strong role for courts, legal accountability, respect for basic minimum treatment standards for all prisoners, et cetera. And we, the
United States, have a tremendous interest in promoting those ideals, not just as a -- not just for their inherent value but because I
believe we have a strategic national security interest in promoting those principles abroad.
 MCMAHON: Daniel, did you want to add anything?
 PRIETO: I would just amplify that. I think the move reaffirms to the rest of the world that America is committed to human rights
and liberty, the rule of law and the values that underpin American democracy and its appeal, frankly, to the rest of the world. I
mean, many of these aspects of soft power are critical in terms of the United States's ability to deal and make progress on a host of
issues with the rest of the world.
 Counterterrorism policy under the Bush administration had begun to create a serious amount of friction on issues even unrelated
to terrorism. So I think the symbolic effect has a pretty quick practical effect -- pretty quick and immediate practical effect as well.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                42/165


                                              SOLVENCY – TERRORISM

Closing Guantanamo solves terrorism – terrorists are able to point to our treatment of prisoners and use it as propaganda for
recruiting new members. While we may not be able to solve all terrorism, closing Gitmo will also raise our credibility in the
Middle East so that we can get countries such as Yemen and Saudia Arabia on board in the war on terror – that‘s The
Independent.

Guantanamo causes terrorism around the globe
HRF. 11.08. ―How to Close Guantanamo ― Human Rights First. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/080818-USLS-gitmo-
blueprint.pdf
The decision to send detainees to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was driven in part by a desire to insulate the detention,
interrogation and trial of terrorism suspects there from judicial scrutiny and the rule of law. That goal was illegitimate and unworthy of
this nation, and any policy designed to implement it was destined for failure. The policies of detention, interrogation and trial at
Guantanamo have failed as both a practical and legal matter. The Supreme Court has rejected those policies each time it has examined
them. In its third such decision in June 2008, the Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas corpus, thereby
invalidating the Administration‘s position that Guantanamo lies beyond the reach of the U.S. Constitution and the federal courts.
Guantanamo policies also run counter to sound counterinsurgency doctrine. The attempt to create a ―law-free zone‖ where prisoners
are subjected to detention, interrogation and trial practices that violate basic norms of human dignity and fundamental fairness has
provided America‘s enemies with an easy recruiting tool, severely impaired counterterrorism cooperation with our allies, and failed to
bring dangerous terrorists to justice. President-elect Obama has acknowledged the damage to America‘s reputation for fairness and
transparency done by Guantanamo, and he has vowed to close the detention facility as a first step towards repairing our reputation as a
nation committed to human rights and the rule of law. Making good on this pledge will require comprehensive policy changes and a
major investment in domestic and political capital. After seven years of error upon error, the policies underlying the existence of
Guantanamo are embedded in law and executive pronouncements. Reversing this will require bold action.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                43/165


                               SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP

Closing Gitmo is key to human rights – the torture of prisoners through means such as water boarding tank our credibility as
a human rights promoter abroad because there is the inherent hypocrisy of promoting rights abroad while torturing our
prisoners in the name of national security at home – that‘s the Guardian

Closing Ghitmo is key to reaffirm our commitment to human rights
Human Rights Fisrt 2008: How to Close Guantanamo: Blueprint for the Next Administration.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/080818-USLS-gitmo-blueprint.pdf
The decision to send detainees to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was driven in part by a desire to insulate the detention,
interrogation and trial of terrorism suspects there from judicial scrutiny and the rule of law. That goal was illegitimate and unworthy of
this nation, and any policy designed to implement it was destined for failure. The policies of detention, interrogation and trial at
Guantanamo have failed as both a practical and legal matter. The Supreme Court has rejected those policies each time it has examined
them. In its third such decision in June 2008, the Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas corpus, thereby
invalidating the Administration‘s position that Guantanamo lies beyond the reach of the U.S. Constitution and the federal courts.
Guantanamo policies also run counter to sound counterinsurgency doctrine. The attempt to create a ―law-free zone‖ where prisoners
are subjected to detention, interrogation and trial practices that violate basic norms of human dignity and fundamental fairness has
provided America‘s enemies with an easy recruiting tool, severely impaired counterterrorism cooperation with our allies, and failed to
bring dangerous terrorists to justice. President-elect Obama has acknowledged the damage to America‘s reputation for fairness and
transparency done by Guantanamo, and he has vowed to close the detention facility as a first step towards repairing our reputation as a
nation committed to human rights and the rule of law. Making good on this pledge will require comprehensive policy changes and a
major investment in domestic and political capital. After seven years of error upon error, the policies underlying the existence of
Guantanamo are embedded in law and executive pronouncements. Reversing this will require bold action.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 44/165


                                  SOLVENCY MODIFIER – OBAMA SIGNAL

Obama will be perceived as pushing the CP – he just met with German and Saudi leaders and is taking the initiative
Deborah Tedford. 7.7.2009. ―Obama Uses Trip To Push For Guantanamo Help‖ NPR. NPR staff writer.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105017330

President Obama is using his trip to Germany and the Middle East to push for help in resettling Guantanamo Bay detainees, discussing
the issue with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a private meeting Friday. Obama said he has not asked Merkel to make "hard
commitments" on allowing terrorism suspects from the U.S. military prison to be transferred to Germany, but he confirmed that the
countries are carrying on serious discussions. Although the president has said he wants to close the prison by January, he said he
doesn't expect the matter of what to do with the detainees to be settled soon. Germany has resisted U.S. pressure to take as many as a
dozen of the roughly 240 inmates being held at Guantanamo. "Chancellor Merkel has been very open to discussions with us. We
have not asked her for hard commitments, and she has not given us any hard commitments beyond having a serious discussion about,
'Are there ways that we can solve this problem?' " Obama said at a joint news conference with Merkel in Dresden, Germany. Merkel
said Germany favors Obama's move to close the facility in Cuba and will be part of the solution. She noted that Germany accepted the
return of Muslim student Murat Kurnaz in 2006. Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen born in Germany, was picked up by police while traveling
in Pakistan and held in U.S. prisons in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay for more than four years. "When there is a solution in the
offing, we will constructively contribute to it," Merkel said, adding that talks are ongoing between the U.S. and Germany. "And at the
very end, I am absolutely confident that we will find a common solution." Obama said Germany and other European Union
countries share America's interest in battling extremists while upholding principles of international justice. He said he is talking with
the EU about getting help to manage the prison's closure. "But it's going to take some time," the president said. "I think it's going to be
a longer process of evaluation." In the meantime, officials are examining individual cases to see if there are detainees who can be
safely transferred from Guantanamo Bay and where they might go. Obama also sought help with Guantanamo Bay detainees on
other fronts this week. He pressed King Abdullah for help with 100 Yemeni detainees when he visited Saudi Arabia on Wednesday,
foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said at a media briefing Wednesday. McDonough said he did not yet know the outcome of
the conversation. The Obama administration has asked Saudi Arabia and Yemen to send the Yemenis to detention centers in Saudi
Arabia. Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Friday turned down a U.S. request to take 17 Uighurs,
Guantanamo detainees who the U.S. no longer considers enemy combatants. Uighurs are from Xinjiang, an isolated region that
borders Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Central Asian nations. Chinese officials have branded them terrorist members of an outlawed
separatist group and said they must be sent to China, but U.S. officials have balked, fearing the Uighurs would be tortured. Albania
accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but has refused to take more.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                45/165


                                             POLITICS – DEMS OPPOSE

Democrats oppose Obama‘s plan
Julian E. Barnes. 5.20.09. ―Pentagon push-back: Guantanamo Bay.‖ The Swamp. Julian E. Barnes is a staff writer for the Los Angeles
Times. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/pentagon_pushback_guantanamo_b.html
Pushing back against growing congressional opposition to moving detainees to the United States, a top Pentagon official said
today that closing the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would require prisoners to be moved to the U.S. and urged
lawmakers need to think more strategically. Michele A. Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy--the Pentagon's No. 3
official - said that if allied nations were going to take detainees, the U.S. also needed to take some into its prisons. "When we are
asking allies to do their fair share in dealing with this challenge, we need to do our fair share," Flournoy said today. "This is a case
where we need to ask members of Congress to take a more strategic view. Many of these members called for the closing of
Guantanamo, and we need their partnership in making that possible." Senate Democrats dropped plans Tuesday to provide funding
for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lawmakers are poised to bar the transfer of detainees to the U.S., and Capitol Hill has
become skeptical about the administration's detention policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that he
wanted neither to have detainees released into the U.S. nor to see them imprisoned here. "We don't want them around the United
States," Reid said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has predicted that between 50 and 100 detainees would eventually be
moved to American prisons, and that some of the Chinese Muslims, who are held at Guantanamo but not considered dangerous,
would be released into the U.S. Flournoy would not offer her own prediction of how many detainees the U.S. or its allies would
eventually take. She said the administration was going through each case individually and there were no decisions on where
detainees might be moved. "I am optimistic that all of us will take more than we have agreed so far," she said. "This is a challenge
that will require all of us to step up and make hard choices." European allies so far have offered to take only a couple additional
detainees from Guantanamo. If the U.S. cannot move more of the detainees to allied countries, it will be faced with holding large
number of detainees it cannot transfer to their home countries. Officials have been reluctant to send many of the remaining 240
detainees to their counties of origin, fearful that the suspects would either be allowed to rejoin the fight against the U.S. or could be
abused in prison. Closing Guantanamo has proven to be a far more tricky political proposition than some in the Obama
administration believed it would be. Top officials have remained largely silent, failing to offer broad arguments about how closing
Guantanamo could help the U.S. position in the world. But Obama is set to make a speech about Guantanamo and detainee policy
Thursday. The administration has created task forces to deal with various aspects of interrogation and detention policies--and craft
new practices on how to handle current and future detainees. The work is complicated by the fact that many of the detainees
currently in custody were captured at different times, Flournoy said. "We are dealing with an inheritance," she said. "We are
dealing with.... People... taken into custody when different policies were in place." One of the most critical questions facing the
administration is what to do with the potentially dozens of detainees it cannot release, transfer or try. Until now, the detainees have
been held indefinitely in Guantanamo. But if they were moved to the United States, the Obama administration may seek
congressional approval to continue to hold them without formal charges. Pressed for the administration's position, Flournoy
offered few details, but did not disavow continued detention without trial--at least for some of the detainees. "The desire is to
provide due process to as many of these detainees as possible," she said. Human rights groups remain strongly opposed to the
Obama administration's push for congressional approval for detention without trial.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                46/165


                                                                    POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

CP is massively unpopular – it will cost capital
Trish Turner. 5.20.09. ―Obama Tries to Restore Order on Gitmo, After Senate Blocks Closure Funds‖ Fox News. Trish Turner is a
correspondent for FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-tries-order-democrats-gitmo/
President Obama is trying to keep Democratic unrest from derailing his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp after the
Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to yank money for shuttering the prison. The president is delivering a speech Thursday meant to shed
light on how the administration expects to transfer 240 detainees off the island by January 2010. The address appears overdue, considering the resistance and mixed
messages coming from top-ranking Democrats over the issue on Capitol Hill. By a vote of 90-6, the Senate approved an amendment to a war funding bill Wednesday
that not only blocks supplemental funds from being used to close Guantanamo and move detainees to U.S. soil, but also orders that no funds already in U.S. coffers be
redirected toward that purpose. The Senate also overwhelmingly approved an amendment offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that requires a classified
threat assessment of each detainee at Guantanamo. It was a severe blow to the impassioned opposition of Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), who argued that the release of that
sensitive information might jeopardize the prosecutions of the detainees. Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the vote
to strip the $80 million Obama had wanted should not be seen as a rebuke to the administration but a "wake up call." He said it is "up to the administration to
fashion a plan that can win the support of the American people and members of Congress." The amendment Wednesday also precludes the
upgrade of any U.S. facility or the building of any new facility to house detainees. The supplemental bill on which senators are voting lasts until the new budget year,
which starts on Oct 1. The amendments complicating Guantanamo closure don't stop there. This afternoon, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment from Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would mandate a U.S. threat assessment for every single detainee at Gitmo. Republicans used Wednesday's
vote to build momentum against the prison's closure. GOP senators held a press conference immediately after the vote to warn that
U.S. prisons are not equipped to hold the dangerous detainees now in Cuba. Plus they said the Guantanamo facility is best for the
detainees themselves, arguing that it provides superior health care and special accommodations to practice Islam. "If you were to close
Guantanamo and move these people somewhere in the United States, you could not duplicate what is available there," said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. "I would suggest
to you that they would receive worse treatment than they are receiving at Guantanamo." Former Vice President Dick Cheney is also giving a dueling speech on national
security Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute, bolstered in his escalating criticism of the administration by the Senate's Guantanamo vote. Such developments
make assurances from Obama that his plan is the best way to go all the more important. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama will detail
a "hefty part" of his plan for the detainees in his speech on Thursday. "We agree with Congress that before resources, that they should receive a more detailed plan,"
Gibbs said. But in a signal from the administration that patience could be wearing thin, Michele Flournoy, Obama's new Pentagon policy chief, said Wednesday that
members of Congress must rethink their opposition to accepting these detainees into the United States. Flournoy said it is unrealistic to think that no detainees will
come to the United States, and that the U.S. cannot ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden. Without singling anyone out,
Flournoy said lawmakers need to think more "strategically." Democrats had been hammered by Republicans, many of whom don't want Guantanamo shuttered at all,
over the possibility that detainees could be sent to live in the United States -- in prisons or otherwise. Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that he thinks the prison can still close by
January 2010. However, it's unclear what Democrats would be okay with approving in a closure plan. The party has been a state of disarray over the issue recently. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., nearly had it both ways on Tuesday. He first said, emphatically, that Democrats "will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States," and then said Democrats
also don't want detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons. The suggestion was that the United States should not taken any prisoners under any circumstances, raising questions about where the
Democratic leadership wants detainees to go should the closure plan be executed. But Reid's spokesman walked back his statement, saying the leader went too far and would actually be open to
putting them in American prisons, if the administration puts forward a plan to do so. The discord between Reid's own words was emblematic of the clash among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The
prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release. The administration is considering releasing them in Northern
Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb's language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States. Sens. Jon Tester
and Max Baucus, both Montana Democrats, have said emphatically that no detainees will be brought to their state. The same goes for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
 FBI Director Robert Mueller
told the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that he's concerned some detainees could support terrorism if sent to the United States, either through financial support to terror networks,
radicalization of others or taking part in attacks. Still, Inouye left the door open to bringing the prisoners to the U.S. eventually, refusing to rule out any opportunity to incarcerate detainees on
U.S. soil. Reid's No. 2, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told FOX News that while Democrats were very concerned about taking a vote defending moving prisoners to the United States, he is not
opposed to it, adding that American prison facilities can hold these prisoners safely. Durbin took on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying that while it's
true no prisoner has ever escaped from the Guantanamo, "it's also true that no terrorists have ever escaped from U.S. supermax prisons." He was one of the six lawmakers to vote against the
amendment Wednesday.Meanwhile, Republicans are not exactly unified on how to move forward, other than to say no detainees should be
moved to the U.S. under any circumstances. Some Republicans, like McConnell and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., say they want to keep
Gitmo open, period. "We're going to do everything we can to keep it open. It will stay open because there's no place else to put these
guys," Inhofe told FOX News. They found some window of support for their position when U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled Wednesday that the United States
can continue to hold some prisoners in military detention indefinitely without any charges. Others are emphatic that it should be closed.




                                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                  The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                           47/165


                                   POLITICS – COUNTERPLAN IS A WIN

Obama is pushing to close Guantanamo – CP is perceived as a victory
Reinout van Wagtendonk. 7.10.09. ―Guantánamo suspect to be tried by civilian court‖ RNW. (Radio Netherlands Worldwide)
Reinout van Wagtendonk, US correspondent for Radio Netherlands. http://www.rnw.nl/zh-hans/node/5433

President Obama wants to close the Guantanamo Bay facility and end the attempt to establish military tribunals. A number of the
suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay can be tried by federal courts. However, polls show that many Americans have
doubts about transferring Guantanamo Bay inmates to US prisons. There are fears that some of them could later form a danger if
they are found innocent and released. The Republican opposition is stirring up these fears.
One way of convincing the public that the US judicial system is up to the task of defending the country's citizens from the
Guantanamo Bay suspects is to try a few cases in which there is overwhelming evidence against the suspect. The accused would be
certain of receiving a stiff penalty, or even the death sentence. In this instance, Ahmed Ghailani is a perfect candidate.
There is far less evidence against most of the remaining 240 inmates at Guantanamo Bay. The US government would prefer to
extradite them to other countries, rather than take the risk that they would be freed by a federal court.




                         For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       48/165


                            *** CAFÉ STANDARDS COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                   The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            49/165

                                           CAFÉ STANDARDS 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 40 miles
per gallon by 2020.

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Oil
Existing technology could be deployed to create an auto fleet averaging 40mpg and beyond
David Friedman is a senior transportation analyst in the UCS Clean Vehicles Program., Union of Concerned Scientists, 12.06.2002,
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/nucleus.cfm?publicationID=317
Using conventional technologies, automakers could create a fleet of passenger vehicles that average more than 40 miles per gallon,
nearly a 75% increase over today's fleet. Fuel cost savings to consumers could be as much as $3,000 to $5,000 over the lifetime of
the vehicle. These savings would more than make up for the cost of the fuel economy improvements. Under such a scenario, the
typical family car could reach over 45 mpg, while the cost of filling up an SUV could be cut in half with a fuel economy of 40
mpg. Hybrid electric technologies could take fuel economy up a notch, bringing it to at least 55 mpg across the fleet. This would
more than double current fuel economy and could save consumers $3,500 to $6,500 in fuel costs. Hybrid family cars could reach
nearly 60 mpg, while hybrid SUVs could cross the 50 mpg mark. Fuel cell cars offer the greatest benefit, potentially tripling fuel
economy.

Fuel efficiency increase to 40mpg would decrease use of oil and the need for oil from places like ANWR
David Friedman is a senior transportation analyst in the UCS Clean Vehicles Program., Union of Concerned Scientists, 12.06.2002,
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/nucleus.cfm?publicationID=317
If fuel economy increases to 40 mpg by 2012, and then 55 mpg by 2020, oil use would decrease significantly. Instead of growing
unchecked, by 2015 it could be brought back to what it is today. And it could keep going down. Fuel economy improvements
would dwarf oil supplies from proposed expansion into environmentally sensitive areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve. By 2020, fuel savings would amount to more than four times the oil economically recoverable from the Arctic. In
addition, if Americans spend less money buying fuel, they'll have more to spend elsewhere. The 9.8 billion dollars consumers
could be saving by 2010 and the 28 billion by 2020 would be returned to the nation's economy. In the auto industry, investments to
improve fuel economy and the money saved by consumers, could create 40,000 jobs by 2010 and 100,000 by 2020. Furthermore,
the environmental benefits in decreased emissions would be significant. By 2010, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas
emissions from driving and providing fuel for cars and light trucks could be reduced by 273 million tons, diminishing
transportation's contribution to global warming. At the same time, nearly 150 million pounds of toxic emissions and 320 million
pounds of smog-forming pollutants would never find their way from refineries to our lungs. By 2020, emissions reductions would
be even greater: 888 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, 481 million fewer pounds of toxics, and
1,039 million fewer pounds of smog-forming pollutants.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 50/165


                                             CAFÉ STANDARDS 1NC 2/2

(__) Economy
Increased fuel economy would create jobs in all sectors including the auto industry – automakers will have time to adapt
Kara Rinaldi, Deputy Policy Director, 2002, http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf
Raising fuel economy would create new jobs in the automotive sector as a result of large-scale production and use of up-to-date
technologies and materials. The modest increase in sticker prices for fuel-efficient cars would be more than offset by consumers'
gas savings, which would be spent on products and services, creating new jobs throughout the economy. On the other hand, if fuel
economy continues to stagnate, the next oil shock could mean big trouble for the U.S auto industry. Higher fuel economy
standards would mean more auto industry jobs. • Due to increased investment in the industry, a standard of 40 mpg by 2012, rising
to 55 mpg by 2020 would create 40,000 new jobs in the automotive sector by 2010, and 104,000 by 2020.1 Fuel economy
improvements put money into consumers' pockets, creating jobs across the economy. • If fuel economy reached 40 mpg by 2012,
consumers would save $16 billion in annual fuel costs. The resulting spending would generate job increases in almost all sectors—
72,000 new jobs in ten years and 244,000 jobs in twenty years. The retail trade, agriculture, restaurant, health services,
construction, and other industries would all gain between 20,000 and 80,000 new jobs in twenty years.2 • While an increase in fuel
economy would result in a decline in oil drilling and refining jobs, the energy sectors are among the least labor-intensive in the US
economy, and much of our oil spending goes overseas. Transferring dollars from oil production to other sectors produces a net
increase in employment. The auto industry's claims that higher fuel economy standards mean fewer jobs are based on faulty
assumptions
the auto manufacturers' association that such a step would mean the loss of 150,000 to 300,000 jobs. A Los Angeles Times
investigation revealed the claim assumed that assembly lines and entire plants producing cars that did not meet the new standards
would simply be shut down.3 This extreme scenario does not reflect the reality that car and truck models will be improved, not
eliminated, and that the standards will be gradually introduced.
resolution against fuel economy improvements using the same specious argument. GM argued that it would respond to a 3 mpg
increase in light truck fuel economy standards simply by eliminating the least efficient existing products causing the loss of 36,200
                      AFE standards apply to fuel economies averaged across automakers‘ fleets and do not restrict production of
individual vehicle models. Manufacturers would have time and flexibility to adapt to new standards. U.S. manufacturers can‘t
                                                                                                                           such as
Honda and Toyota then led the Big Three on fuel economy. High oil prices in the future could hit American automakers hard, just
as happened in the 1970s. A planned, phased-in increase of fuel economy standards will provide critical insurance against a repeat
                                                                       Chrysler, in a temporary departure from the Big Three's
customary point of view, saw fuel-efficient cars as an important market to capture and opposed efforts to roll back CAFE
standards. According to a 1985 Chrysler ad, "…CAFE protects American jobs. If CAFE is weakened now, come the next energy
crunch American manufacturers will not be able to meet the demand for fuel-efficient cars…again. And American workers—both
in the Auto Industry and in the other industries that serve it— will be out on the street. Many of their jobs—as was true for the last
two times around—will disappear forever."4




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              51/165


                                         SOLVENCY – OIL DEPENDENCE

A 40 mile to the gallon standard for vehicles significantly reduces oil dependence. The amount of oil saved by 2020 would be
the equivalent of four times all of the amount of oil in ANWR – that‘s Friedman.

Had the 40 mpg law been enacted it would have saved the US 1 million barrels of oil a day
Union of Concerned Scientists April 10 2003 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=222
In 1990, Senators Richard Bryan and Slade Gorton tried to reverse the downward trend in fuel economy by sponsoring a bill to
raise fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks over 10 years. The bill called for a 40 percent increase in CAFE
standards. Had this bill become law, today‘s cars would average 40 mpg and light trucks 29 mpg. The United States would save 1
million barrels of oil a day (mbd) in 2003, on its way to saving 3 mbd. Instead, the average fuel economy of new vehicles is at a
21-year low.

40mpg program would lower oil consumption by 2.3 million barrels per day
The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico), August 21, 2004
It's great to have DaimlerChrysler back in the diesel game on these shores. It might stimulate other carmakers, especially the
Japanese, to bring diesels here. If we were to have 20 to 30 percent of new cars achieve 20 to 30 percent better fuel economy with
no performance compromises, just think of the fuel we'd save. Indeed, according a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, if
the average fuel economy of vehicles on the market were increased to 40 mpg, the United States could lower its oil consumption
by 2.3 million barrels per day. It's enough to make you practice your motorcraft.


Incorporating SUVs, vans and small pick-up trucks into a more strict CAFÉ program would significantly decrease US reliance
on foreign oil
Colston Warne (founding Chair of the Board of Consumers Union) December 22 2002 Journal of Consumer Affairs
A primary example is the problem of carbon emissions from fuels, particularly auto transportation, which contributes greatly to
problems with air quality and global warming. Average miles per gallon for personal vehicles is the lowest it's been since 1980--
even as dependence on foreign oil is a growing concern. A very practical step is to urge consumers to drive more economical
vehicles, and to require that manufacturers produce vehicles with better fuel efficiency. Consumers Union believes that sport-
utility vehicles, vans, and small-pickups should be required to meet the same miles-per-gallon standard that cars do. And we
support increasing the combined fuel economy for cars and light trucks to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2013. If this single
change were implemented, by 2020 it would save 2.53 million barrels of oil per day -- more oil than we currently import from the
Persian Gulf. I'm disappointed that Congress recently rejected improvements in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)
standards, but we shouldn't take no for an answer, and we'll be back to fight another day.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              52/165


                                              SOLVENCY – OIL SPILLS

Raising CAFÉ standards is key to stopping oil spills
Noam Mohr and Joseph Shapiro (Researchers at the U.S. PIRG Education Fund) October 2000 ―Pumping up the Price: The Hidden
Costs of Outdated Fuel Efficiency Standards‖, ttp://uspirg.org/reports/pumpinguptheprice2000.pdf
Transporting the excess oil needed to accommodate low mileage vehicles contributes to the danger of oil spills. In 1989, when the
Exxon Valdez spilled almost 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska‘s Prince William Sound, Americans saw how environmentally
devastating oil spills can be.38 Yet while the Exxon Valdez received widespread media coverage, oil spills are hardly unusual
events. Every year, the U.S. alone experiences thousands of spills, amounting to millions of gallons of oil. Oil spills kill wildlife
and release vapors which cause cancer and respiratory disease. By reducing the amount of petroleum that must be stored and
transported, updating CAFE standards would prevent more than 808 oil spills on average each year in the United States,
amounting to more than 3.2 million gallons of oil spillage annually.39 This is the equivalent of preventing an Exxon Valdez
disaster about every three years.40 As the U.S. imports half the oil it uses,41 the number of oil spills worldwide resulting directly
from outdated fuel efficiency standards is likely far higher.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               53/165


                                     SOLVENCY – CASPIAN CONFLICTS

Increased CAFE standards would solve instability in the Caspian, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East that results
from oil related presence in those regions
LA Times, Los Angeles Times May 20, 2004 Thursday
To hear President Bush tell it on Wednesday, had Congress passed his administration's energy bill, SUV owners would be using
spare change instead of retirement funds to fill their gas guzzlers' tanks. But Bush's defense of his troubled energy policy during a
brief news conference doesn't wash. Start with the president's claim that opening more of the Alaskan wilderness to drilling would
have kept skyrocketing gasoline prices in check. Oil companies might be able to economically extract 3.2 billion barrels of oil
from these pristine lands, but that's only enough to satisfy U.S. demand for about six months, and it would take more than a decade
for the oil to reach gas pumps. Tougher fuel-efficiency standards could save as much as 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, the
equivalent of what the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. Bush also chided Congress for failing to embrace his plan to cut
dependence on foreign energy sources. Yet a recent three-part Times series confirms that it was Vice President Dick Cheney's
handpicked energy task force that sent the U.S. down a dangerous road in 2001 by advocating strengthened ties with oil-rich
regimes in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caspian region. Though Angola, Colombia, Kazakhstan and their neighbors
are blessed with a wealth of oil, "The Politics of Petroleum" (www.latimes.com/oil) presents evidence that the oil revenues pouring
into these countries are benefiting a small minority of wealthy people, increasing the gap between rich and poor and potentially
sparking the instability the administration wants to prevent. The series underscores the dangers of striking deals that serve the
short-term interests of those regimes. American-trained troops in Colombia are defending an Occidental Petroleum pipeline and a
rich oil field against rebels. Money generated by that pipeline has been used both to prop up Colombia's military and, by way of
local provinces, to buy weapons for left-wing guerrillas. A massive influx of dollars in Angola is failing to create promised jobs,
even as government corruption grows. The country ranks 164th out of 175 countries on a United Nations index that measures
citizens' quality of life. The Bush administration has awarded key trade concessions to oil-rich Kazakhstan by claiming significant
improvements in its human rights, despite conclusions to the contrary by the State Department and other organizations.
Meanwhile, Cheney has dismissed conservation, the only sure way to reduce oil demand, as little more than "a possible sign of
personal virtue." Cheney's faulty logic ignores the reality that conservation works. The U.S. economy is 50% more energy-efficient
than it was in the 1970s because of tough conservation standards. Yet the Bush administration dragged its feet for three years
before approving new efficiency standards for air conditioners and refuses to embrace more-stringent fuel-efficiency standards for
automobiles and trucks. The equation couldn't be any simpler. Putting more fuel-efficient vehicles on the road would ease
pressure on consumers' pocketbooks as well as the need to side with regimes that risk creating the very problems that the United
States wants to avoid.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             54/165


                                                 SOLVENCY – ANWR

Fuel efficiency saves ANWR
Jack Doyle, founder & director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator 2000, Taken for a Ride, p264-5
Johnston believed that if his bill had enough ―balance‖ in it—conservation provisions offsetting production provisions—he had a
chance of getting a national energy bill passed. Environmentalists, however, would not give away ANWR for any reason,
regardless of how strong a CAFE provision the bill might contain. They held that each policy—protecting wilderness and
promoting conservation—was vital in its own right, and that in fact, tougher fuel economy standards would help make it
unnecessary to exploit ANWR in the first place. For example, in a February 1991 report, ―Looking for Oil in All the Wrong
Places,‖ Robert Watson of NRDC concluded, ―America‘s largest unexploited oil and natural gas reserves lie not in envi-
ronmentally sensitive coastal or Alaskan fields, but in our inefficient buildings, appliances and transportation system.‖ Indeed,
using various projections of fuel economy through the years 2000 and 2010, Watson found that potential savings in the automobile
sector alone would exceed by a factor of five the total economic energy resources in both ANWR and the unleased offshore
resource base. An earlier study completed by Brooks Yeager, then with the Sierra Club, found that merely restoring the 27.5 MPG
standard on new vehicles by 1993 would yield a greater contribution to national energy needs (4.6 billion BELs) than would
ANWR‘s expected production (3.2 billion BBLs).56




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                   The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            55/165


                                              SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Placing a 40 mile to the gallon standard would result in the revitalization of the auto industry because they would be forced
into hiring more workers to build cars, which they would then sell – solves back the economy at multiple levels, industry and
jobs creation – that‘s Rinaldi

Environment friendly autos are key to global market share
Automotive News, 12-1-2003
Carmakers that produce vehicles with lower CO2 emissions could see global market share increase and their financial performance
improve. OEMs that produce vehicles with higher CO2 emissions may see their global competitiveness decrease, causing
shareholder values to suffer. These are the conclusions of a study on the impact of present and future climate change policies on
competitiveness and value creation in the auto industry. Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based independent asset
management company that focuses on environmentally friendly investments, said the cost of meeting CO2 reduction goals could
vary by a factor of 25 across the industry. Luxury carmaker BMW may have to spend an average of $650 per vehicle to meet
future pollution rules while Honda, which sells cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, faces only $25 per vehicle. Top
carmakers surveyed SAM investigated how climate change policies by governments in the top global automotive markets could
affect 10 leading automakers between now and 2015. The study looked at BMW, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Honda,
Nissan, PSA, Renault, Toyota and Volkswagen. The assessment covered the USA, European Union and Japan which together
account for nearly 70 percent of global automotive sales. Automakers' financial performance and competitiveness will be
increasingly sensitive to C02-emission and fuel-economy measures as more countries adopt new regulations to address fears over
climate change. SAM and the World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, devised a method of
measuring automakers' vulnerability to regulations and commitments on CO2 emission reductions up until 2015. Significant
effects The study's two key measurements of the risks facing carmakers were: 1. The "carbon intensity of profits" - the degree to
which current profits of automakers are derived from high CO2-emitting vehicles. 2. The "value exposure" - an estimate of the
costs that carmakers face to meet new CO2 reduction regulations.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  56/165


                                     AT: OIL MAKES PEOPLE DRIVE LESS

Even if some people drive more – overall the plan still drastically reduces consumption
David L. Greene 1997 Center for Transportation Analysis ―Why CAFÉ Worked,‖ http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf
Vehicle usage is well known to be negatively correlated with vehicle age, as is fuel economy for models years 1975 through 1983.
Models estimated using survey data that include age as a right-hand side variable, carried out by Golob et al. (1996) and Goldberg
(1996) have produced cost per mile elasticities close to zero. The conclusion that the elasticity of VMT with respect to fuel cost is
small, is quite robust when recent data are used. Even Nivola and Crandall (1995) who assert in chapter 3 of their book that the
fuel price elasticity of VMT is -0.5, report in Appendix A of their book that their own econometric analysis produced a fuel price
elasticity of -0.1, entirely consistent with the results of other recent studies. In addition, they found that the elasticity of fuel
economy (MPG) was only 0.04 and not statistically significantly different from zero. In other words, Nivola and Crandall‘s (1995,
p. 126) econometric results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is no rebound effect whatsoever. The idea that the rebound
effect may be smaller than the fuel-cost-per-mile elasticity of vehicle travel is further supported by recent analysis of asymmetry in
the price elasticity of demand for petroleum and petroleum prices. Dargay and Gately (1994) have shown that petroleum and
petroleum product demands appear to respond more to price increases than price decreases. Their econometric analysis indicates
an elasticity of about -0.21 for rising prices but only -0.04 for falling prices for oil demand in the U.S. transportation sector. Since
increasing fuel economy amounts to a decrease in the fuel cost of travel, this suggests that the rebound effect may well be smaller
than the average fuel cost elasticity of vehicle travel. Thus, recent estimates of the rebound effect based on the full experience with
fuel price and fuel economy changes over the past 25 years provide very strong evidence that it is quite small, on the order of -0.1
in the short-run and about -0.2 in the long-run. The implication is that 80 percent to 90 percent of the maximum potential reduction
in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions due to a technical change in vehicle efficiency will be realized, even after the
increase in vehicle miles due to lower per mile fuel costs has had its full effect. Once again, the prima facie evidence is entirely
consistent with this conclusion. Despite an 80 percent increase in light-duty vehicle travel from 1975 to 1995, light-duty vehicle
fuel use has increased by only 20 percent. The difference is attributable to a 50 percent increase in on-road fuel economy over the
same period. The average annual growth in VMT of 3 percent is consistent with historical trends. The rebound effect has not
obviated the potential benefits regulatory-driven fuel economy gains. Instead, those improvements now reduce U.S. gasoline use
by about 45 billion gallons of gasoline per year and save motorists about $55 billion per year in gasoline costs.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       57/165


             *** COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                 The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                          58/165

                                                 COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Proliferation
Ratifying CTBT is key to nuclear leadership and to passing CTBT globally
Deepti Choubey ‗07 (deputy director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment with a A.B., Harvard University;
M.I.A., Columbia University; ―A Chance for Nuclear Leadership‖;
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19695; November 7, 2007)
Whoever wins in 2008, the most important strategic foreign policy issue facing the next President and Congress will be how to prevent the further spread of nuclear
weapons. For almost four decades the world has been protected by a global agreement -- the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)                                      --
which worked to keep the number of nuclear weapon states small. That agreement, and the world order that relies on it, badly needs
U.S. leadership. There are three reasons why American influence is needed. First, the nuclear "have-not" states, who signed away their right to
develop nuclear weapons, don't believe that the "haves" are living up to their side of the deal to eventually dismantle their weapons. Second, Iran's continuing refusal to
comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations and legally binding UN Security Council resolutions undermines the effectiveness of a rule-based
system for managing nuclear technology and threatens international peace and security. And third, as excitement over a nuclear energy renaissance grows, non-nuclear-
weapon states in the developing world declare large ambitions to master the nuclear fuel cycle, a scenario the old rules didn't account for. But the regime can be
saved. Last month marked the eighth anniversary of the Senate's failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The treaty bans
all nuclear explosions in all places and provides an opportunity for nuclear weapons states -- China, France, Russia, the U.K. and U.S. -- to make good on their
legal obligation to dismantle their nuclear weapons arsenals. Forty-four states need to sign and then ratify the Treaty for it to go into effect. Pakistan,
North Korea and India are the only three states not to sign. An additional seven states -- the U.S., Iran, China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia and Israel -- have signed but
not ratified. U.S. leadership, in the form of Senate ratification, would pressure other "hold out" states to follow suit. Opponents to the CTBT
have three concerns: can cheaters be detected, can the U.S. maintain a credible nuclear deterrent without testing, and will the CTBT help prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons? Political and technical progress over the last decade has reduced these concerns: The CTBT monitoring system detected last year's nuclear test in North Korea
(twenty times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb). Government studies have confirmed that U.S. weapons will be reliable for 85 years -- twice their expected life span --
further diminishing the need to test ever again. And finally, the world's leading experts agree that U.S. ratification of the Treaty would pressure
other states to clarify their nuclear policies to the rest of the world -- including Iran, China, Egypt, India and Israel.

CTBT stops proliferation in every major hotspot in the world
Deepti Choubey ‗07 (deputy director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment with a A.B., Harvard University;
M.I.A., Columbia University; ―A Chance for Nuclear Leadership‖;
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19695; November 7, 2007)
The CTBT would also freeze currently inferior arsenals in North East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East by cementing the
technical superiority of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, while forbidding other nuclear weapons states from conducting tests needed
to improve their own. Those who fear China as a "peer competitor" should jump at this opportunity. China, already a signatory to the
CTBT, with no domestic political opposition, could ratify within months. China could conceivably be persuaded to do so within the
current negotiations with North Korea. If the Six Party Talks' plan to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program bears fruit and removes
fissile material from the Korean peninsula, there should be few obstacles to securing North Korea's agreement to not test again. It
would be easier to achieve this outcome if two of the six parties -- the U.S. and China -- ratified the treaty. In South Asia, the CTBT
could help to prevent the arms race that Pakistan warns could result from the Bush administration's pursuit of an unprecedented
exception to both U.S. and global rules on nuclear trade for India. Securing Indian support of the CTBT could diminish concerns about
India's ability to increase its arsenal. Pakistan, eager to keep up with reciprocal measures and gain the same treatment as India, could
likely also be persuaded to do the same. In the Middle East, Iran could ratify the CTBT as further evidence that its nuclear program is
truly for peaceful purposes. Whether Iran ratifies it or not, there is no doubt that crossing the redline of exploding a nuclear device, as
the North Koreans did after withdrawing from the NPT, would only shore up international opinion against Iran and finally unify the
UN Security Council to take serious action. The CTBT also represents another obstacle to thwart the nuclear weapons ambitions of
Iran's neighbors. Nine of the fifteen states that have announced interest in developing nuclear energy programs since 2005 are in the
Middle East and include Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They could follow the South African example of constructing crude gun-
type weapons that do not require testing. The CTBT would, however, inhibit efforts to develop more sophisticated arsenals because
without nuclear testing these nations could have no confidence that their covertly and illegally developed weapons would even work.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               59/165


                                   SOLVENCY – NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP

CTBT demonstrates US leadership
Scoop Media Group ‘07 (CTBTO Press Release; ―Austria, Costa Rica Call For US Leadership On CTBT‖;
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0709/S00446.htm; 19 September 2007)
The Foreign Ministers of Austria and Costa Rica, H.E. Ursula Plassnik and H.E. Bruno Stagno Ugarte, today called for US leadership
in the CTBT ratification process at a Conference promoting the Treaty.
Plassnik and Stagno Ugarte share the presidency of the fifth Conference to facilitate the entry into force of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is taking place in Vienna, Austria. The two Foreign Ministers were joined at the press
briefing by H.E. Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, and H.E. Tibor Tóth, Executive Secretary of the
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.
Stagno Ugarte said that the January 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal by well-known experts on security issues from the US
Republican and Democratic parties was reason for optimism. "They all advocated a bi-partisan approach so that the US can become a
full party to the CTBT", he said. Plassnik reiterated that the message was, "Yes, we want US leadership in the CTBT ratification
process."

Passing CTBT will restore US nuclear leadership
The Acronym Institute ‘99 (The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy; ―Senate CTBT Rejection Not The End‖; Issue No.
41, November 1999; http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd41/41reject.htm; November 1999)
Second, the United States remains a strong and active supporter of the NPT. But its leadership has been weakened by Senates rejection
of the CTBT. At the 1995 Review Conference, which made the NPT permanent, the five NWS that are permanent members of the UN
Security Council promised to conclude a CTBT by the end of 1996. This promise was made because the NPT requires its members to
negotiate in good faith to halt the nuclear arms race, and a CTBT has for 40 years been accepted as one of the key measures to do
that.2 Non-nuclear-weapon NPT parties, already under an NPT obligation not to test, will see the Senate's action as a frustration of the
longstanding obligation of the United States and four other NPT NWS to negotiate a CTBT. Any non-nuclear-weapon NPT members
that want to withdraw from the NPT for other reasons now have a "tit-for-tat" excuse. Therefore, at the important five-year NPT
Review Conference scheduled for April-May 2000, new countries will have to step forward and assume leadership roles.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              60/165


                                   SOLVENCY – NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP

Ratifying CTBT would increase US nuclear credibility
Tariq Rauf ‘99 (Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; ―Ratification of CTBT in U.S. National Security Interest‖; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies;
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm; October 14, 1999)
Ending nuclear explosive testing has been on the global arms control agenda for over forty years and was history's longest sought and
hardest fought arms control treaty. Virtually all post-World War II US Presidents have grappled with this issue and President Dwight
Eisenhower described the failure to achieve a permanent ban on nuclear testing as the greatest disappointment of any administration-of
any decade-of any time and of any party.
On 24 September 1996, the United States-which had conducted in excess of 1,000 nuclear tests, the largest number of any nation-
demonstrated its global leadership in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by being the first country to sign the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. Since then, 156 other countries-including China, Russia, South Africa, Japan, all NATO
partners and European Union members-have also signed this Treaty.
The CTBT will enter into force once 44 nations operating nuclear reactors have ratified. Thus far 26 of the 44 have already done so,
including France and the United Kingdom. US ratification would encourage such action by the Russian Duma and the Chinese
People's Congress, as well as sending a clear signal regarding US leadership in preventing nuclear proliferation and reducing the
nuclear danger. It would add credibility to Washington's effort to halt nuclear weapon proliferation in South Asia, Northeast Asia and
the Middle East.

Ratifying CTBT would increase nuclear leadership and help stop proliferation
Donald C. Whitmore ‘98 (President, Third Millenium Foundation; ―Will U.S. Senate Be Blamed For Nuclear Disaster?‖;
http://www.abolishnukes.com/short_essays/CTBT_whitmore.html; April 10, 1998)
Two recent White House papers have focused on how the CTBT contributes to U.S. national security and why ratification is linked to
proliferation control [6] [7]. However, these papers do not adequately explain the connection. For example, mention is made of the
connection to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. But, the connection is not
explained in the detail needed to understand and appreciate the urgency of CTBT ratification. This document and the cited references
supply the needed background.
A global test ban does help counter nuke proliferation but, more importantly, failure to ratify the CTBT could do considerable damage
to the nonproliferation regime. Ratification failure would impact U.S. leadership in nonproliferation initiatives and would especially
impact the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Understanding this latter point requires some explanation of NPT history and how non-
nuclear nations view NPT commitments. That part of the story is told in Appendix (B). The connection between the CTBT and NPT
must be understood to fully appreciate the potential consequences of ratification failure.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                61/165


                         AT: WE NEED TO TEST NEW NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The US does not need new warheads to keep nuclear leadership
Tariq Rauf ‘99 (Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; ―Ratification of CTBT in U.S. National Security Interest‖; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies;
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm; October 14, 1999)
The United States has traditionally conducted nuclear tests for at least six reasons: 1) to achieve and demonstrate a weapons
capability; 2) to develop, certify, and modernize warheads; 3) to maintain stockpile reliability; 4) to determine and evaluate weapons
effects; 5) to enhance safety of existing designs; and 6) to retain the technological infrastructure for nuclear armaments. According to
leading US nuclear weapon scientists, for at least a decade, nuclear testing has not been considered necessary to maintain US stockpile
reliability or to improve safety features. As President Bush cancelled new weapon acquisition programs, there is no need for testing
new designs or evaluating weapons effects. Safety and reliability, as well as infrastructure retention, is already being accomplished
through a vast state-of-the-art "science based stockpile stewardship" program. The US ability to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear
stockpile is grounded in the experience of more than 1,000 nuclear explosive tests, of 150 nuclear tests with modern weapon types,
and approximately 15,000 (non-nuclear explosive) surveillance tests. Each weapon in the enduring stockpile has been thoroughly
tested. In July 1995, an eminent group of US nuclear scientists produced a report for the Energy Secretary on options for preserving
safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in a no-test regime. This report, JSR-95-320, called JASON, concluded that if the US did not
develop any new warhead designs, it could assure the safety and reliability of its existing nuclear stockpile by: a) ensuring close
surveillance; b) developing new experimental and computational capabilities for stockpile management; c) maintaining a strong
industrial and scientific infrastructure; d) improving the performance margins of its weapons, for example, by increasing the in-fill of
tritium; and e) rebuilding or remanufacturing warheads of proven and certified designs, of which the US has five, if and when
necessary.

Not ratifying CTBT destroyed US nuclear leadership
Donald C. Whitmore ‘98 (President, Third Millenium Foundation; ―Will U.S. Senate Be Blamed For Nuclear Disaster?‖;
http://www.abolishnukes.com/short_essays/CTBT_whitmore.html; April 10, 1998)
U.S. Senate rejection of the CTBT would probably kill the treaty. Appendix (B) should be read if there is any doubt of this result.
Renegotiation of the treaty to soften it for U.S. acceptance is also unlikely. If U.S. ratification does not succeed then other nuclear
powers would probably not ratify the CTBT. Non-nuclear powers would have no incentive to forswear nuclear testing. The "best case"
is that the CTBT would die but with little impact -- perhaps under the excuse that the treaty "really did not matter anyway". In the best
case, non-nuclear powers would stay committed to the NPT. To stay committed, the accountability measures negotiated at the 1995
NPT Review and Extension Conference, see Appendix (B), would likely have to be working to their satisfaction. The nuclear powers
might also need to further demonstrate their commitment to nuclear disarmament (e.g., by agreement to some timetable -- now
opposed in principle by the nuclear powers).
Even in the best case, the U.S. would lose much of its leadership position in countering nuclear proliferation. For example, China,
North Korea, India, and Pakistan would be less inclined to respond to U.S. proddings. The new ruling party in India would be even
less likely to reverse course from their current interest in reviewing nuclear policy. They might tilt further towards openly declaring
nuclear weapons status. All potential consequences are difficult to imagine but in the "best case" there would be little meaningful
impact. Some impact would be unavoidable. In the best case, the demise of the CTBT would not encourage runaway proliferation and
it would leave the nonproliferation regime relatively untouched. But, like the "worst case" scenario, the odds are rather thin.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 62/165


                                          SOLVENCY – PROLIFERATION

Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is key to sending an international signal abroad to other countries such as Iran
that we have no intention of expanding our arsenal, so there would be no reason for them to expand theirs and they would in
fact then also ratify the treaty – that‘s our first piece of Choubey evidence. And this stems proliferation globally in every
potential hot spot because no one will be able to test nuclear weapons – that‘s our second piece of Choibey evidence

CTBT will give US nuclear leadership and stop proliferation
Tariq Rauf ‘99 (Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; ―Ratification of CTBT in U.S. National Security Interest‖; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies;
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm; October 14, 1999)
A CTBT will guarantee the US' clear superiority in nuclear weapon designs and technologies. This Treaty would help reduce the role
of nuclear weapons in international security and bring additional pressure on NPT hold-outs to refrain from weapon development and
to join the regime. A CTBT would prevent countries such as India, Israel, and Pakistan from validating theoretical designs and
calculations for nuclear warheads, and raise the political costs for so-called "rogue" states in violating global non-proliferation norms.
It would also prevent Russia from modernizing its nuclear warhead designs. And a CTBT would stand in the way of China validating
or proving reverse engineered warhead designs or technologies that it may have illegally acquired from the US.
A CTBT also would help eliminate a critical element of friction and dissatisfaction concerning the inequality of obligations assumed
under the NPT by nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS). NNWS parties to the NPT from the Third World
constituted by far the overwhelming majority of NPT members-these states regarded a CTBT as a sine qua non for NPT extension-and
their support was crucial in securing the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995. Many non-nuclear weapon states consider a CTBT
as the single most important and visible indicator of the nuclear weapon states' compliance with NPT Article VI (on nuclear
disarmament). The US Senate's negative vote unless reversed soon, will have a major detrimental effect on the NPT Review
Conference in April 2000.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                   63/165


                                           SOLVENCY – PROLIFERATION

US ratification of CTBT stops prolif in China, Russia, India, and Pakistan
Tariq Rauf ‘99 (Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; ―Ratification of CTBT in U.S. National Security Interest‖; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies;
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm; October 14, 1999)
The CTBT, when it enters into force, will become a critical part of the system of interlocking treaties and agreements that help prevent
the global spread of nuclear weapons. Unless serious measures are undertaken to promote the early entry-into-force of the CTBT and a
legally binding norm against further testing is established, there will be pressures in some countries to resume nuclear testing. Such a
resumption of testing would be justified in Russia in terms of certifying existing or developing new sub-strategic and strategic nuclear
warhead designs to compensate for declining conventional forces and to respond to US missile defences, and in China as required for
nuclear force modernization to respond to deployment of theater- or national-missile defences by the United States. In the absence of
US ratification and a CTBT, these pressures are likely to be the strongest in Russia and China. This could make it even more difficult
to prevent further testing by India and Pakistan.

Ratification of CTBT is necessary to help nuclear leadership and stop proliferation
Tariq Rauf ‘99 (Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies; ―Ratification of CTBT in U.S. National Security Interest‖; James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies;
http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm; October 14, 1999)
A CTBT is unquestionably in the US national interest for a number of key reasons: 1) it will preserve the US' immense lead in nuclear
weapon designs; 2) it will prevent China and Russia from modernizing their nuclear arsenals and catching up with the US; 3) it will
greatly add to Washington's diplomatic clout in fighting proliferation; and 4) it will create an international legal regime to investigate
suspicious events in other countries.

Failure to ratify CTBT undermines U.S. proliferation leadership – counterplan re-establishes U.S. commitment and
encourages nuclear states to discontinue programs.
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr., Scholar-in-Residence at the National Academy of Sciences, September/October 1999, Damage Assessment:
The Senate Rejection of the CTBT, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_09-10/pcso99a.asp
The Senate's very unfortunate repudiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] yesterday was a shock to all of us when it
actually occurred, even though I think the outcome was in the end generally anticipated. As has been frequently noted, this is the first
rejection of a security-related international treaty by the U.S. Senate since the ill-fated Treaty of Versailles, and we're all familiar with
the history subsequent to that action.
I believe the Senate action is the most serious setback to the arms control regime in the 40 years since President Eisenhower first
introduced the comprehensive test ban in 1958. It seriously undercuts the ability of the United States to play a leadership role in its
central foreign policy objective of preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons and also in its goal of further progress in arms
control in general.
For many years, the comprehensive test ban has been seen as the litmus test of the willingness of the nuclear-weapon states to follow
their obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] to move away from dependence on nuclear weapons as the central
component of their military establishment and policy. Many non-nuclear-weapon states that strongly support the NPT and have no
nuclear aspirations nevertheless consider the NPT inherently discriminatory because it allows the nuclear-weapon states not only to
maintain their nuclear capability, but also to test, which, short of nuclear war, is widely seen as the most blatant manifestation of
nuclear weapons capabilities.
When, in 1995, the Non-Proliferation Treaty came up for review and extension, the United States was able, with great effort, to build
an international consensus in support of indefinite extension. But to achieve that outcome, the United States committed itself—and the
other nuclear-weapon states also committed themselves—to achieving a comprehensive test ban in 1996. The treaty was completed
under U.S. leadership, and President Clinton was the first to sign the treaty in September 1996.
The world will see the Senate action as a repudiation of this clear U.S. commitment. I think that in a damage assessment of where we
stand, it is self-evident that this action greatly undercuts the ability of the United States to persuade or pressure other countries not to
continue or initiate nuclear weapons programs.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             64/165


                            SOLVENCY – TERRORISM AND ARMS RACES

CTBT stops risk of a terrorist attack and arms race with China or Russia
William Lambers ‘08 (Historian and author of ―Road to Peace: From the Disarming of the Great Lakes to the Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty‖, ―The Battle of Britain‖, ―From War to Peace: The Story of Great Britain and the United States‖, ―Nuclear Weapons‖,
―Articles on Nuclear Weapons‖, ―Nuclear Weapons: Documents, Video and Audio CD-ROMs: A Study Supplement for the book
Nuclear Weapons‖; ―Obama or McCain Can Finish Journey to Nuclear Test Ban Treaty‖; Blogcritics Magazine;
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/18/203804.php; July 18, 2008)
That effort started the very long road to the 1996 comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT) that would end all nuclear test
explosions. But, to this day, the United States has not ratified the treaty.
Barack Obama or John McCain will have an opportunity to show U.S. leadership in ratifying the CTBT. The treaty would be a step
toward nuclear disarmament. The fewer of these weapons the less chance of nuclear terrorism or accidents. Nuclear weapons states
India and Pakistan are more likely to ratify the treaty with the U.S. taking the lead. The CTBT would also reduce the chances of a
costly arms race with Russia or China which new nuclear weapons development is sure to encourage.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               65/165


                                           SOLVENCY – ENVIRONMENT

Nuclear testing causes environmental destruction
WILPF ‘08 (Women‘s International League for Peace and Freedom; ―The Environment And the Nuclear Age‖;
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/technical/factsheets/environmental.html; January 18, 2008)
The 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an important mechanism for halting the production of nuclear weapons and their
resulting environmental impacts. The NPT, by constraining the continued development of nuclear weapons, can act as a means to
prevent further radioactive contamination to the environment.
The production of nuclear weapons has created not only the threat of nuclear destruction on an immediate level through nuclear war,
but also on a continual and protracted level through the creation of nuclear waste. The ‗clean up‘ and environmental restoration of the
US DOE's nuclear weapons complex (and other nuclear facilities worldwide) is regarded as one of the most costly and difficult
projects ever undertaken. New technologies will need to be developed in order to retrieve radioactive materials which have been
released into the environment either through accident or by design. The dumping of nuclear wastes into bodies of water as well as the
burial of radioactive materials is particularly troubling.
In the United States, major water systems including the Columbia River, Savannah River and the Snake River aquifer have been
contaminated. From 1945 until 1970, coolant waters from nuclear reactors at the Hanford Reservation in Washington State were
routinely discharged into the Columbia River. In 1991, the General Accounting Office published a document which stated that 444
billion gallons of liquid radioactive wastes, from coolant waters to radioactive liquids, were discharged into the environment from the
Hanford site alone.
Hanford is also host to the infamous ‗tank farm‘ where millions of gallons of highly radioactive and toxic waste are contained in 177
tanks. Approximately 50 of these tanks present an immediate threat of explosion due to a gaseous build-up of a variety of chemical
constituents and their decay products. Some tanks have already ruptured and their radioactive contents have leaked into the ground

Nuclear testing damages the environment
Greenpeace ‘96 (Greenpeace; ―Stop Nuclear Testing -- CTBT Now‖; http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read6.html;
April 1996)
Since the first nuclear test at Alamagordo, New Mexico, in July 1945, the five major nuclear weapons states -- the U.S., Russia, the
U.K., France, and China -- plus India have conducted 2,044 nuclear tests: on average one every nine days for the past 50 years. Every
test has produced environmental contamination, helped to develop new weapons, and added to the arsenals of the nuclear states. Even
with the end of the Cold War, nuclear testing continues, a reminder that the nuclear arms race is not over.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                 The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                          66/165


                                       SOLVENCY – U.S. CREDIBILITY

Ratifying CTBT uniquely increases US credibility
Mathaba ‘08 (Mathaba News Network; ―German-sponsored confab eyes restoring US global credibility‖;
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=598808; 2008/07/17)
A high-profile German-sponsored conference here Wednesday discussed ways of restoring America's credibility in the wake of the US
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as massive human rights violations in Washington's global anti-terror campaign.
The objective of the conference is "to present a blueprint or plan of action for the next US administration," former German
ambassador to the US Wolfgang Ischinger told journalists here Wednesday at a press briefing in Berlin.
Meanwhile, ex-US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott said concrete recommendations" had been made at the two-day top secret
confab hosted jointly by the German Bertelsmann Foundation and the US Brookings Institute. Specific steps include re-committing to
international law and ratifying the CTBT, Talbott added.




                         For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 67/165

                                                     SOLVENCY – HEG

Ratification key to heg – stops rising nuclear threats
Rauf 4- Director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Project at the Monterey Institute of International Studies
(Tariq, ―Ratification of CTBT in the U.S. National Security Interest,‖ 10/14/2004, http://cns.miis.edu/research/testban/rauf.htm)
A CTBT will guarantee the US' clear superiority in nuclear weapon designs and technologies. This Treaty would help reduce the role
of nuclear weapons in international security and bring additional pressure on NPT hold-outs to refrain from weapon development and
to join the regime. A CTBT would prevent countries such as India, Israel, and Pakistan from validating theoretical designs and
calculations for nuclear warheads, and raise the political costs for so-called "rogue" states in violating global non-proliferation norms.
It would also prevent Russia from modernizing its nuclear warhead designs. And a CTBT would stand in the way of China validating
or proving reverse engineered warhead designs or technologies that it may have illegally acquired from the US.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               68/165


                               AT: ALL OF THEIR CTBT BAD ARGUMENTS

We already follow the treaty – it‘s just a question of whether it‘s entered into force
NYT 5/24/2009 (New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25mon1.html)
Nearly 17 years ago, after more than 1,000 explosions, the United States conducted its last underground nuclear test. President George
H. W. Bush, following Russia and France, announced a voluntary moratorium and the other major nuclear powers — Britain and
China — made the same pledge with more or less enthusiasm. Since then, 180 countries have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. That‘s all very good news. The bad news is that the test ban treaty, which would go beyond the voluntary moratorium and
legally bind states to not test, has never come into force. That is because the United States and eight other nuclear-capable states
whose participation is required — China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and Egypt — have not ratified it. A
formal ban on testing would make it harder for nuclear-armed states to build new weapons, and place another hurdle in the way of any
country — Iran comes immediately to mind — thinking of starting an arsenal. North Korea‘s announcement that it had tested a
nuclear device on Monday is a stark reminder of the many dangers out there.

Their authors are hacks paid off by the defense industry to escalate nuclear weapons
Frida Berrigan, Senior Program Associate at The New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative, 7/28/2009
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frida-berrigan/pro-nuclear-pundits-debun_b_246335.html)
President Obama's efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons have drawn praise and encouragement from a wide
range of individuals and organizations, from the arms control community, to retired diplomats and military officials, to the broader
public. But they have also drawn harsh criticism -- misleading at best and outright deceptive at worst -- from a chorus of
unreconstructed neo-conservatives and nuclear war theorists who are intent on scaring the public into opposing the president's
disarmament agenda. The leaders of this informal network include John Bolton, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Keith Payne.
Sensible steps that will make the world a safer place -- from pursuing nuclear reductions with Russia, to advocating for ratification of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and engaging in smart, effective diplomacy to curb the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea
-- have been denounced at every turn by Bolton and company. Loud though they may be -- shouting their criticism from the pages of
the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other smaller outlets -- the pro-nuclear pundits lack credibility.
The media should not be treating them as learned experts with contributions to make to the discourse on U.S. national security. They
have been wrong repeatedly and flagrantly: wrong on the war on terror, wrong on the war in Iraq, and wrong on arms control. They
accuse the Obama administration of compromising (or worse) U.S. national security by promoting arms control, while trumpeting a
collection of Bush administration policies like preemptive war, regime change and unilateralism that have created or seriously
inflamed threats to U.S. national security and the U.S. image throughout the world. To add insult to injury, pundits like Gaffney and
Perle are also beholden to the defense industry -- one of the few sectors of the economy that has been doing well, in part due to the
war policies they helped to set into motion.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             69/165


                                             NET BENEFIT – POLITCIS

Nuclear arms control is popular with the public
MaximsNews ‘08 (MaximsNews Network; ―THE STANLEY FOUNDATION: POLICY DIALOGUE BRIEF: US NUCLEAR
WEAPONS POLICY AND ARMS CONTROL‖;
http://www.maximsnews.com/news20080624stanleyfdtnnuclearweaponspolicyandarmscontrol10806241604.htm; 24/06/2008)
The rise of a political bloc in the United States that opposes formal arms control has important implications for the future of US
nuclear weapons policy. Although recent polls indicate widespread support in both the United States and Russia for reducing nuclear
arsenals by 95 percent—and although both Democratic presidential candidates (and, subsequent to this workshop, presumptive
Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain) have promised to reinvigorate US arms control efforts—new arms control
initiatives will face significant hurdles.

Ratifying CTBT is bipartisan
AFP ‘08 (AFP; ―Bush exit may pave way for new nuclear security strategy‖;
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQ43LsYmLfVQIBDIsos-zXM6Mj4g; Jun 29, 2008)
Both the presidential candidates, senators Barack Obama and John McCain, recognize that renewed US leadership on disarmament is
critical to strengthen the global accord aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating dangers posed by nuclear weapons.
Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, seems committed to securing support from Congress for swift US
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibiting nuclear weapons testing.
Republican nominee-elect John McCain, who once voted against the CTBT, is willing to take another look at the accord, which the
Bush administration has failed to consider aside from refusing to accept new weapons limits.
Obama has also emphasized that the United States is looking to a nuclear free world while McCain committed the country to the same
-- if less specific -- goal.
In fact, a remarkable bipartisan consensus is emerging that can help the new US president revolutionize America's policy towards
nuclear weapons, said Democratic Senator John Kerry, who lost to Bush in the 2004 White House race.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       70/165


                            *** PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                   71/165

                                                  PHYTOPLANKTON 1NC

Counterplan text: The United States federal government should dump ―X‖ amount of iron into its territorial waters for the
purpose of increasing phytoplankton growth

Contention 1: Competition – competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Warming
Dumping increases phytoplankton, which solves warming 80 times over
Environmental News Network, 6/15/98, Iron plays key role in ocean CO2 absorption,
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/15/co2.yoto/
(ENN) -- Iron deficiency, known to cause anemia in humans, disables the ability of coastal water to store the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide, according to research published in the current issue of the journal Nature. Iron gives a boost to microscopic ocean
plants called phytoplankton which use the sun's energy to draw carbon dioxide from the air. The process allows the oceans to store
up to 80 times more carbon dioxide than found in the atmosphere.

Contention 3: Net Benefit

Phytoplankton prevent ocean biodiversity loss
Environmental News Network, 6/15/98, Iron plays key role in ocean CO2 absorption,
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/15/co2.yoto/
In addition to carbon-cycle impacts, a lack of iron in coastal waters may impact the entire marine food chain. Phytoplankton are the
"grass" of the sea, he notes, and their photosynthesis supports "almost all of the rest of the oceans' creatures, directly or indirectly."
Fewer phytoplankton, resulting from a lack of iron, means that "less energy gets passed up to higher-level creatures," such as
commercially important fish or marine mammals, he said.

Biodiversity extinction causes human extinction
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com ―Just how bad is the biodiversity extinction crisis?‖ 2/6/07,
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0206-biodiversity.html
In recent years, scientists have warned of a looming biodiversity extinction crisis, one that will rival or exceed the five historic
mass extinctions that occurred millions of years ago. Unlike these past extinctions, which were variously the result of catastrophic
climate change, extraterrestrial collisions, atmospheric poisoning, and hyperactive volcanism, the current extinction event is one of
our own making, fueled mainly by habitat destruction and, to a lesser extent, over-exploitation of certain species. While few
scientists doubt species extinction is occurring, the degree to which it will occur in the future has long been subject of debate in
conservation literature. Looking solely at species loss resulting from tropical deforestation, some researchers have forecast
extinction rates as high as 75 percent. Now a new paper, published in Biotropica, argues that the most dire of these projections
may be overstated. Using models that show lower rates of forest loss based on slowing population growth and other factors, Joseph
Wright from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau from the University of Minnesota
say that species loss may be more moderate than the commonly cited figures. While some scientists have criticized their work as
"overly optimistic," prominent biologists say that their research has ignited an important discussion and raises fundamental
questions about future conservation priorities and research efforts. This could ultimately result in more effective strategies for
conserving biological diversity, they say Overall, Wright and Muller-Landau forecast little net change in forest cover between now
and 2030. "Specifically, we expect that in the next 25 years the rate of net tropical deforestation will slow on all continents.
Further, we predict a switch to a net increase in forest area in Latin America and Asia if not within 25 than at least within 50 years,
and in Africa within 100 years. The fundamental causes of such changes will be stabilizing human populations and thus stabilizing
demand for agricultural commodities, increased nonagricultural economic opportunities in developing countries, and increased
agricultural land use efficiency due to continuing technological improvements and their more widespread use. Our optimism is
consistent with past changes in population size, agricultural yields, and cropland area in developing countries. . . . Finally, there is
reason to believe that in tropical countries in the future, as in developed temperate countries in the past, increasing per capita
income will eventually bring increasing demand for environmental goods, including native forest protection."




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                  The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                           72/165


                              EXT. DUMPING IRON  PHYTOPLANKTON

Iron Dumping key to phytoplankton growth
Beth Daley, staff writer for the Boston Globe, 10/1/07, Seeds of a solution Could iron dropped in the ocean combat climate change?,
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/10/01/seeds_of_a_solution/
Iron seeding is a particularly attractive proposal to fight global warming because a small amount of the inexpensive nutrient could
result in enormous blooms of microscopic vegetation known as phytoplankton. Iron already fertilizes portions of the world's seas,
carried there by dust storms. But the vast Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica, as well as other regions of the world, are
missing the iron dust. Throw enough in during the right season, scientists largely agree, and phytoplankton will grow to absorb
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                73/165


                                        SOLVENCY – CLIMATE CHANGE

Dumping iron in the oceans spur Phytoplankton growth which can solve warming 80 times over – that‘s Environmental News
Network

Phytoplankton increase photosynthesis, decreasing warming
John Roach, staff writer for National Geographic, 6/9/04, Can Iron-Enriched Oceans Thwart Global Warming?,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0609_040609_carbonsink.html
Iron Hypothesis
Buesseler recently applied his study of the nutrient flow to the so-called iron hypothesis. Some scientists argue that by adding iron
to areas of the ocean that are iron deficient, populations of iron-starved phytoplankton would blossom.
In turn, these robust phytoplankton populations would help fight global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
via increased photosynthesis. (The process entails plants using energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and nutrients into
complex organic compounds to form new plant material.)
Some of this carbon sinks to the deep ocean along with other nutrients as phytoplankton die. As a result, some scientists
hypothesize that increased phytoplankton would isolate additional carbon in the deep ocean for hundreds or thousands of years.
"These particles carry carbon and other associated elements from the surface to the deep sea," Buesseler said. "If the newly formed
carbon—essentially organic matter—were to remain in the surface ocean, marine bacteria would simply consume this organic
matter and convert it back to carbon dioxide."

Phytoplankton create chemicals and increase sea sequestration that helps curve warming
Randall Parker, staff writer for future pundit, an environmental news blog, 5/5/ 04,
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002094.html
Phytoplankton are tiny, single-celled floating plants. They inhabit the upper layers of any natural body of water where there is
enough light to support photosynthetic growth. They are the base of the ocean's food web, and their production helps to regulate
the global carbon cycle. They also contribute to the global cycling of many other compounds with climate implications.
One of these compounds is a volatile organic sulfur gas called dimethyl sulfide or DMS. Scientists had previously theorized that
DMS is part of a climate feedback mechanism, but until now there had been no observational evidence illustrating how reduced
sunlight actually leads to the decreased ocean production of DMS. This is the breakthrough in Toole and Siegel's research.
Ultraviolet radiation causes the phytoplankton to release DMS.
According to their research, it appears that phytoplankton produce organic sulfur compounds as a chemical defense from the
damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation and other environmental stresses, in much the same way as our bodies use vitamins E and
C to flush out molecules that cause cellular damage.
Siegel and Toole found that ultraviolet radiation explained almost 90 percent of the variability in the biological production of
DMS. They showed that summertime DMS production is "enormous," and that the entire upper layer of DMS content is replaced
in just a few days. This demonstrates a tight link between DMS and solar fluxes.
"The significance of this work is that it provides, for the first time, observational evidence showing that the DMS-anti-oxidant
mechanism closes the DMS-climate feedback loop," said Siegel. "The implications are huge. Now we know that phytoplankton
respond dramatically to UV radiation stresses, and that this response is incredibly rapid, literally just days."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  74/165


                                                      EVIDENCE INDICT

Their evidence is flawed – their authors are attempting to prevent the spread of plankton for their own interests
Matt Richtel, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/1/07, Recruiting Plankton to Fight Global Warming,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/01plankton.html
Enter Mr. George, 57, the founder of Planktos, based in Foster City, Calif., just south of San Francisco. After working as an
environmental consultant in Canada, Mr. George came up with the Planktos concept in 1997, the same year as the adoption of the
Kyoto Protocol, the treaty that the United States declines to participate in, that has driven most carbon-reduction regulations so far.
In addition to the iron fertilization project, Planktos also has a subsidiary, KlimaFa, which has begun a 10-year project to plant a
quarter of a million acres of new forest in Hungary.
Mr. George said his goal was broader than mitigating carbon emissions. He said he also wanted to restore stores of plankton that
had been lost as climate change led to less iron being deposited from the land into oceans.
The efforts of the WeatherBird II, he said, do not assume that the science is ready for commercialization, but they are intended to
provide research that could prove its effectiveness. And he agrees with many scientists and environmentalists that carbon
sequestration is only one element in the effort to mitigate global warming, an effort that will still require lowering the use of fossil
fuels.
Still, he asserts that many of his scientific critics are expressing doubts about the commercialization of ocean fertilization because
of their own self-interest in maintaining a steady flow of research dollars for their own projects.
The scientists ―have an enormous vested interest in preserving this as a research topic alone,‖ he said. ―If this subject remains in
academia for the next 10 or 20 years, it will certainly get a bunch of senior scientists on to retirement age, but it won‘t do much for
the planet.‖




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                  The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                           75/165


                                AT: U.S. WILL PREVENT IRON DUMPING

1. This argument is flawed, because fiat means that we debate about whether the plan or counterplan should happen, not
whether it will

2. The US can‘t prevent iron dumping from occurring – no jurisdiction
Beth Daley, staff writer for the Boston Globe, 10/1/07, Seeds of a solution Could iron dropped in the ocean combat climate change?,
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/10/01/seeds_of_a_solution/
While the United States could require a US-flagged ship to conduct an environmental review of any iron seeding project, a
company could merely re-flag the vessel from a country that is unlikely to require the same. An international anti-dumping treaty
known as the London Convention issued a statement of concern in June about iron fertilization, calling for more research.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       76/165


                       *** COLUMBIAN FREE TRADE COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                             77/165

                                                 COLUMBIAN FREE TRADE 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Columbian Free Trade Agreement

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Free Trade
Columbian FTA solves Chavez influence and boosts free trade.
Latin Business Chronicle 7 (Chronicle editors, ―Approve Colombia FTA Now‖, May 21,
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=1251)
Then there‘s the political dimension. Not approving a U.S.-Colombia FTA sends a very negative signal to any country in Latin
America that wants to boost business relations with the United States. Even if the Panama and Peru FTAs are approved, not passing
the Colombia FTA will be seen as a blow to free trade throughout Latin America. And this just as the region is facing the
growing influence of anti-U.S., anti-business populists like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We therefore strongly urge
Congress, including Democrats, to approve the free trade agreement with Colombia and do so quickly and without any further delays.

(__) Heg
Colombia FTA is key to US hegemony
Bob Corker, 3/14/08, ―The Commercial Appeal‖
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:noYMtxfkvR4J:www.latradecoalition.org/NR/rdonlyres/egx2fns4jepdyl3n35curfmyxhqlcf7ejtfrkqqyjmdqjye7y25figg5qkiwbrdjo3xzy7iriclxws7zwt643
p2vrga/CitystatehavebigstakeinColombiaFTA.pdf+%22The+commercial+appeal%22+Carlos+GUTIERREZ&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The Colombia agreement is critical for our national and economic security. Regional stability demands that we support Colombia as it
fights terrorism. We have just returned from visiting Medellin with a bipartisan congressional delegation. We saw children playing on
streets that were once controlled by drug lords. We also met with paramilitaries who have laid down their arms and rejoined civil
society. We saw firsthand the progress this country has made, as well as the need for our ongoing support. Others in the region who
have a very different vision for this hemisphere will be looking closely at what we do in Colombia. They don't share our views on
freedom, open markets and trade, and they will watch carefully to see if we turn our backs on an ally. A decade ago Colombia was on
the brink of becoming a failed state. Today, under democratically elected President Alvaro Uribe, and with the assistance of America's
$5.5 billion bipartisan investment, Plan Colombia, the country has made a tremendous turnaround. America's global leadership is at
stake. Will we stay at the forefront, breaking down barriers to trade and commerce, and spreading democracy, prosperity and hope? Or
will we turn back to a time of economic isolationism?

(__) Competitiveness
Colombia FTA is key to US competitiveness
Bob Corker, 3/14/08, ―The Commercial Appeal‖
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:noYMtxfkvR4J:www.latradecoalition.org/NR/rdonlyres/egx2fns4jepdyl3n35curfmyxhqlcf7ejtfrkqqyjmdqjye7y25figg5qkiwbrdjo3xzy7iriclxws7zwt643
p2vrga/CitystatehavebigstakeinColombiaFTA.pdf+%22The+commercial+appeal%22+Carlos+GUTIERREZ&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
By road, rail, air or water, all roads lead to Memphis. The River City knows that today those roads don't end at our borders and we must do everything we can to be
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. We can help do that through the passage of the free trade agreement with Colombia awaiting a vote in Congress
now. Memphis is one of the nation's largest inland ports and the center of a global transportation network with the largest air cargo facility in the world. U.S. air
freight delivery companies like FedEx depend on global access to grow and prosper. Exporters in Memphis, like those around the country, increasingly drive our
nation's economy. Last year, trade was responsible for 26 percent of America's growth, and we exported a record $1.6 trillion. Tennessee
companies exported nearly $22 billion last year, a tremendous 73 percent increase since 2003. Not only is this region a transportation logistics hub - an
"aerotropolis" - it is a center for world-class biotech research, computer and electronics, paper processing and crop production. The Colombia free trade
agreement (FTA) will further enhance Tennessee's competitiveness and level the playing field for Tennessee's exporters. For more than 16
years Congress has given more than 90 percent of Colombian imports duty-free access to the American market, while American
exporters to Colombia still pay hundreds of millions in tariffs each year. The FTA would make trade with Colombia a two-way
street, benefiting America's businesses, farmers and workers. Last year, Tennessee's exports to Colombia totaled $151 million. That's up more than
124 percent from just two years earlier and is across a wide range of sectors, including $67 million in computers and electronics exports, $18 million in chemicals
and more than $14 million in transportation equipment. Tennessee's farmers, who already ship $18 million in crops and food products to Colombia, will benefit
tremendously from this agreement. Colombia is already the largest market for American agriculture products in South America; however,
with the FTA our farmers, food processors and manufacturers will be even more competitive. For example, with the FTA,
Colombia will immediately eliminate its 80 percent duty on prime and choice cuts of beef, as well as duties on poultry products.
Additionally, tariffs will be lowered on nearly all Tennessee agriculture exports to Colombia including soybeans, cotton, corn and tobacco. While the
economic case is clear, from a security, foreign policy and social justice perspective there is also no excuse not to pass this
agreement now. Tennessee has realized the benefits of being open and engaged with the world. The free trade agreement with Colombia will
further those benefits and ensure that American products, services and people stay competitive in the global economy.

                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                       78/165


                                                                  COLUMBIA FREE TRADE 1NC 2/2

(__) Biodiversity
CAFTA will enhance environmental protection and stop biodiversity loss – multiple in-built environmental regulations,
economic growth and access to American technology prove.
Trade Resource Center, No Date Given [Trade Resource Center, No Date Given, Business Roundtable – International Trade and Investment Task Force,
―DR-CAFTA and the Environment‖, <http://trade.businessroundtable.org/trade_2006/cafta_dr/environment.html>]
Environmental provisions in the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) ensure enforcement of
environmental laws through an innovative public submission process and a procedure for fines and sanctions of countries that fail to
enforce their own laws. DR-CAFTA also requires countries to respect multilateral environmental agreements and to agree not to
weaken their environmental laws. In addition, DR-CAFTA provides a mechanism for environmental capacity building and creates an
environmental cooperation commission. These provisions represent the most advanced environmental provisions ever included in a
trade agreement. DR-CAFTA has innovative mechanisms for strengthening environmental protection and ensuring enforcement of
environmental laws. DR-CAFTA contains groundbreaking environmental provisions that go far beyond previous free trade agreements in empowering citizens to enforce
environmental laws and in creating mechanisms to improve environmental protection. Article 17.7 of DR-CAFTA creates a citizen submission process that allows any citizen of a DR-CAFTA member country to file a
complaint alleging that a country is not enforcing its environmental laws. The procedure requires parties to respond to citizen allegations and provides for an environmental secretariat to develop a factual record regarding the
allegation. These citizen submission procedures are similar to those found in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) environmental side agreement, and they have never before been included in the text of a
             -CAFTA also contains a section on voluntary mechanisms to enhance environmental performance. This innovative
trade agreement. DR
section requires parties to encourage voluntary performance guidelines; information sharing; and the development of incentives, such
as market-based programs, to encourage conservation and protection of the environment. DR-CAFTA also includes an environmental
cooperation agreement that provides a framework for undertaking environmental capacity building in DR-CAFTA countries and
establishes an Environmental Cooperation Commission. Again, DR-CAFTA goes beyond previous trade agreements in creating
innovative capacity-building, cooperation and information-sharing frameworks. Finally, DR-CAFTA contains an explicit recognition
of multilateral environmental agreements and requires parties to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade agreements and
environmental agreements. Together, these provisions give DR-CAFTA the most comprehensive environmental provisions ever
included in a trade agreement. DR-CAFTA‘s environment provisions satisfy congressional negotiating objectives. DR-CAFTA fulfills the letter and spirit of the negotiating objectives set forth by Congress in the Trade Act of
2002. Congress called on the president to ensure that trade partners do not weaken their environmental laws and that those laws are enforced effectively. DR-CAFTA requires member countries to effectively enforce their
environmental laws and provides for dispute settlement proceedings and fines if a country violates that requirement. The agreement contains a groundbreaking citizen submission process that allows citizens of any DR-
CAFTA country to make a complaint if they believe a country is not effectively enforcing its environmental laws. In addition, the agreement requires that countries work to ensure that they do not weaken or waive their
environmental laws. Other key negotiating objectives focus on improving protection of the environment though capacity building and improved government practice. DR-CAFTA includes specific environmental cooperation
goals, including improving institutional and legal frameworks, protection of shared migratory species, and various capacity-building and technology-sharing activities. DR-CAFTA also contains an innovative encouragement
of voluntary mechanisms to spur improved environmental performance. In addition, DR-CAFTA parties have negotiated an environmental cooperation agreement. The cooperation agreement is aimed at technology and
                                                                        chapters of DR-CAFTA significantly reduce or eliminate
knowledge transfer and partnership programs to improve environmental protection. Finally, the goods and services
barriers to U.S. environmental goods and services in Central America. Improved market access for U.S. environmental technology
and services not only increases U.S. exports but also ensures better access to state-of-the-art technology and services in the region.
Increasing prosperity as a result of trade will help improve environmental protection in the region. Central America is a region with
astounding biodiversity and important world ecosystems. It also is a region suffering from severe poverty and significant environment and public health problems. One important
step to improving protection of the environment in Central America is poverty reduction through increased economic growth. Countries with higher national incomes tend to have stronger environmental protections and lower
rates of pollution. Liberalized trade through DRCAFTA will produce more and better paying jobs in Central America — and that prosperity will make it possible for the region to improve environmental protection. In
                               trade can help improve environmental protection by lowering the barriers to the sale of environmental
addition to stimulating economic growth, liberalized
technologies; enabling new invest

(__) Democracy
Colombia FTA is key to American ability to promote democracy everywhere
Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 10/23//07, ―Promoting Peace and Prosperity in Colombia‖
<http://www.tradeagreements.gov/TradeAgreementNews/Speeches/PROD01_004389.html
I have spoken about the direct economic benefits that would flow both to Colombia and the United States under the Free Trade Agreement. However , this
agreement is about more than dollars or pesos, it is about achieving the vision I spoke of earlier of a more secure, prosperous and just hemisphere.
Just as Colombia appears poised to put decades of conflict behind it, the fate of the FTA stands as a vote of confidence in
Colombia's future. Our entry into this long-term partnership with Colombia will reinforce Colombia's commitment to pro-market
policies. It will bolster the country's democratic institutions by ensuring transparency and respect for workers rights, promoting
strong labor and environmental standards, and giving us an important mechanism to monitor compliance so we can work with
Colombia to ensure continued progress in these important areas . Most importantly, approving the Free Trade Agreement demonstrates America's
enduring commitment to Latin America. On the other hand, rejecting this agreement -- just as Colombia shows signs of emerging from its nightmare past --
would undercut its successes and send precisely the wrong signal to the region. Turning our back on our most loyal ally on the
continent would cause countries around the world to question our commitment to the region, and our willingness to go the distance
with our friends. The FTA's defeat would be a huge victory for those -- like Hugo Chavez -- who promote an authoritarian, populist,
highly personalized model of government, drawing upon the failed economic policies of decades past. Others in the region and
around the world would see the FTA's defeat not as a sign of our desire to see yet further progress in Colombia, but rather as an
unwillingness to commit fully to the region.ments in environmental infrastructure; and making it easier for environmental
scientists, engineers and technicians to provide services to the people of Central America.

                                             For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                79/165


                                                                    SOLVENCY – CHECKS CHAVEZ

Columbian FTA checks Chavez‘s influence and undercuts anti-Americanism.
Hadar 08 (Leon, a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute where he analyzes global politics and economics,
―US Congress turns its back on Colombia FTA; Bush administration suffers stinging defeat by the Democrats on the trade deal‖,
Business Times Singapore, lexis)
A US trade association has published an advertisement in several Capitol Hill magazines in recent weeks in which Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is seen hugging Cuba's Fidel Castro while his speech balloon conveys his request:
                                                                             'Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez doesn't like the US-Colombia
'Please reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement!' In case you failed to get the message, the ad explains:
Trade Promotion Agreement. He knows that it will strengthen our ties to Latin America, help a key ally and undercut his anti-
American agenda.' And if you still didn't get that, the ad then concludes by proclaiming that the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was 'good for America but bad
for anti-American dictators'. Yet despite the ad and a related massive public relations and lobbying campaign by the Bush administration, the Colombian government
and leading American businesses, the Democratic-led US Congress didn't seem to buy into the idea that a failure to approve the trade accord with Colombia would play
into the hands of Mr Chavez and his buddies in Latin America. Indeed, the US House of Representatives voted mostly along party lines and by a 224 to 195 margin last
Thursday to over-ride a requirement that Congress must vote on the controversial trade deal within 90 days, during which the House is in session. The vote made it all
but certain that the trade agreement will not be embraced by Congress this year. On one level, the decision put off indefinitely a vote to ratify the free-trade agreement
(FTA) with Colombia could be seen an election-year challenge by the Democrats to President George W Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill. At a time
when the mess in Iraq and the recession have resulted in growing public opposition to Mr Bush's economic and foreign policies, the White House occupant and his aides
were hoping for a small and yet symbolic victory for the president in the form of the passage of the FTA. Instead, the Democrats ended up handing the Bush
administration a stinging defeat on a trade deal that had been advertised as central to US economic as well as strategic interests. Moreover, the two Democratic
presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, had placed the opposition to the FTA with Colombia at the centre of their election campaign in
Pennsylvania, where the Democratic presidential primary will take place this month. Indeed, in the state whose economy, and especially its manufacturing industry, has
been under pressure from foreign competition, the Democrats' populist anti-free trade rhetoric tends to play very well among its large number of unemployed blue-collar
workers. Critics of Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama argue that their current opposition on the FTA with Colombia and to the Bush administration's free trade agenda in
general reflects short-term political calculations as they try to win the support of voters who blame their depressed economic conditions on trade competition from low-
wage economies in Latin America and Asia. At the same time, the trade unions that provide the Democrats with both financial and electoral backing have been leading
the campaign against the Colombia-US FTA. But Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama also have close ties to American companies who support liberalising international trade,
including the accord with Colombia. In fact, the Clinton campaign was forced to announce recently that its chief strategist Mark Penn would be stepping down from his
official post, after news reports indicated that a public relations company Mr Penn represented had been helping the government of Colombia in its efforts to win the
FTA with the US - the same agreement that Mrs Clinton was denouncing. The passage of the FTA would have had some impact on the American economy. The US
International Trade Commission estimated that US exports to Colombia would increase by $1US.1 billion if the deal had been approved.
Colombian officials had told US lawmakers that the FTA would have helped attract more foreign investment into Colombia by making its access to the US market
permanent. They estimated that the failure to approve the deal would cost Colombia close to 500,000 jobs . But more important, Colombia and its President
Alvaro Uribe are considered to be staunch allies of Washington at a time when anti-American sentiment seems to be rising in the
hemisphere - thanks, among other things, to a campaign headed by Venezuela's Mr Chavez. Colombia is also central to the US-led
fight against drug trafficking in the region. Hence the passage of the FTA with Colombia could have helped enhance the influence of
President Uribe at home and in the region.

Columbian FTA effectively checks Chavez.
Roberts 08 (James, Research Fellow in Freedom and Growth at The Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and
Economics, April 30, ―Executive Summary: The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Strengthening a Good Friend in a Rough
Neighborhood‖ The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg2129es.cfm)

Colombia, America‘s best friend in the Carib­bean–Andean region, faces hostile regimes on its borders and unfriendly nearby
neighbors who dis­like Colombia‘s partnership with the United States. Big protectionist U.S. labor unions and far-left anti-globalization groups have
joined these far-left allies of Hugo Chávez—the Castro brothers in Cuba, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in
Argentina, and Evo Morales in Bolivia—in doing all that they can to block the U.S.–Colombia Free Trade Agree-ment (FTA).
Regrettably, on April 10, 2008, the leadership of the U.S. Congress forced a vote along party lines that has delayed consideration of the pend-ing U.S.–Colombia FTA
indefinitely. With this ex post facto change in the ―fast track‖ ground rules that have been a bedrock principle of U.S. trade negotiation policy for the past 35 years,
Congress reneged on its pledge that trade agreements would receive a straight up-or-down vote within 90 days of submission. Congress also sent an alarming message
to America‘s trading partners around the world that Congress puts short-term political expediency above the long-term interests of the U.S. and its allies. The
Colombia FTA would spur economic devel-opment and strengthen Colombian government institutions. Much more than a simple
trade agree-ment, the FTA would seal a deep partnership between two nations that are long-time friends and great defenders of
market-based democracy. It would fortify a bulwark against the rising tide of Chávism that has nearly surrounded Colombia and
threatens to undermine U.S. hemispheric interests.




                                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             80/165


                            SOLVENCY – CHECKS CHAVEZ / HEGEMONY

Ratifying the Columbia FTA is key to solve for U.S. influence in Latin America – absent the counterplan, Chavez remains a
significant threat because he is controlled by regional drug lords who get enormous profits from oil revenues and constitute a
major threat to U.S. security – that‘s Corker.

Failure to pass the Columbia FTA will catalyze Chavez's influence and collapse US hegemony
Timothy M. Snyder, Contributing Editor and co-founder of Contemporary Perspectives & Review, a fellow at the Graduate
Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University and focuses on inter-Andean security and foreign policy
analysis, 1/7/08, "No one needs to worry"
Chávez threatens U.S. primacy mainly through indirect means such as economic agreements with U.S. allies and enemies that seek
to counter or replace U.S. influence in the region. However, Venezuela can threaten U.S. security directly. Venezuela has recently
begun expanding its military exponentially. While, in the long term, it does not appear possible for Venezuela to successfully
challenge the U.S. in a direct military confrontation, these developments certainly complicate (if not destabilize) the South
American security environment, could potentially limit U.S. freedom of action in the region, and therefore should not be
overlooked.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               81/165


                                             SOLVENCY – FREE TRADE

Ratifying the Columbian Free Trade agreement will spur trade throughout Latin America – that‘s Latin Business Chronicle –
and use common sense here, not ratifying this free trade agreement is a global testament that we don‘t care about free trade,
means that only the counterplan solves.

CAFTA is key to U.S. credibility on free trade issues – passage would spark international free trade agreements that include
the U.S.
King, Miller and Lyons, 05 [Neil King Jr., Scott Miller, John Lyons, Journalists for the Wall Street Journal, July 29 2005, The Wall
Street Journal, ―CAFTA Vote Clouds Prospects for Other Trade Deals; Bitter Fight Reveals Fears of Globalization, as Talks in Doha
Round Languish‖, ProQuest]
Globalization optimists questioned the parallels between Cafta and other free-trade pacts. The Central American deal drew
concentrated fire from three well-organized constituencies -- textile producers, sugar companies and unions. But because the Cafta
economies are so small, U.S. business didn't mount as muscular a campaign as it did in the Nafta vote. Business interests will have
much more at stake if a Doha agreement is reached. But the bruising the administration took on Cafta could put an end to the
pursuit of bilateral and regional trade deals that formed part of the "competitive liberalization" campaign launched by former Bush
trade negotiator Robert Zoellick, now deputy secretary of state. During the past four years, Mr. Zoellick sealed free-trade deals with
countries such as Chile, Singapore, Morocco and Australia, and launched talks with countries in the Middle East and Asia. The
administration is now likely to spend less political capital on smaller, contentious deals like Cafta and concentrate on the global
Doha Round. In Asia, the perception that American political support for globalization is weak could accelerate moves to form regional
free- trade pacts that exclude the U.S. China reached a deal in November 2004 with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian
Nations to create one of the world's biggest free-trade areas by 2010 and is pursuing separate pacts with countries as distant as Chile.
India is pursuing bilateral deals, too.
For Latin American governments mulling their own free-trade pacts with the U.S., the Cafta cliffhanger raised an unsettling question:
If the tiny, ardently pro-U.S. economies of Central America can barely get a deal, what can we expect? That may make Latin leaders
less willing to expend political capital at home to win approval for trade deals that grant greater access for U.S. goods.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                82/165


                                           SOLVENCY – ENVIRONMENT

The Columbian FTA solves biodiversity better than the plan – it has built in environmental regulations and species
conservation policies as well as environmental regulations of corporations – that‘s Trade Resource
Center

CAFTA would boost environmental protection – contains two key environmental pacts that would increase regulations in the
region.
Dobbs, 05 [Lou Dobbs, March 1 2005, CNN, ―CAFTA‘s Environmental Politics‖, < http://www.cnn.
com/2005/US/02/28/cafta.politics/index.html>]
The Bush administration needs Congressional approval of the contentious Central American Free Trade Agreement, which is the top
priority on its trade agenda this year. In addition to reaching out to domestic sugar and textile producers, who fear they stand to lose
the most from CAFTA, the White House is making a surprising pitch to environmentalists. Earlier this month, the United States and
CAFTA countries signed two side environmental pacts to the trade agreement. One sets up a process to allow the public to
submit concerns over environmental violations; the other sets goals for environmental protection to be monitored independently.
The United States Trade Representative called these extras "ground-breaking," "robust" and "innovative."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                                             The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                      83/165


                                                          SOLVENCY – U.S. TRADE CREDIBILITY

American credibility is on the line – CAFTA will be the litmus test for successful future free trade in South America.
Lapper, 05 [Richard Lapper, May 17 2005, Financial Times (UK), ―Latin Lessons: the U.S. face a loss of leadership in a troubled
region Latin America: Anti-Americanism and political instability are on the rise‖, ProQuest]
Cafta approval is also crucial to the administration's trade agenda. Trade marked Mr Bush's only real achievement in the region
during his first term: his administration sealed a free trade pact with a South American country, Chile, for the first time in 2003. If
opposition to Cafta is successful it would augur badly for any broader Latin American trade deal involving Brazil, Argentina and
other efficient Latin American food producers. "US credibility and commitment on free trade is at stake on the Cafta vote," adds Peter
DeShazo, director of Americas for the Council on Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Why have relations turned so sour? Economics is part of the reason. During the late 1980s and 1990s Latin America
embraced free market policies and moved enthusiastically into the US orbit. But when reform often failed to produce growth (see below) that began to change, with many Latin Americans blaming the US for their problems.
The failure of the Bush administration to help Argentina when it ran into a disastrous debt crisis at the end of 2001 was particularly damaging to its image in the region. "Whether or not Washington or Wall Street really bear
           Latin Americans believe the US led them down the primrose path but then were simply not interested when times got
the blame, many
tough," says Julia Sweig, a Latin America specialist at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Ironically, the economic
recovery of the past two years has not helped to re-establish support for pro-market policies, since part of the growth has come not
from liberalisation but from booming demand for raw materials. Chinese demand has surged for three commodities - soya, copper and iron ore - that Brazil, Argentina, Chile and
Peru possess in abundance, while the rise in oil prices, also partly because of Chinese demand, has helped Latin American exporters. The improving trade picture has also reduced Brazilian and Argentine dependence on
                 . Moreover, a string of centre-left leaders - in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, for example - owe their elections to
international financial markets
popular unease about market-driven policies.

CAFTA passage is key to U.S. credibility and spurring future South American trade initiatives.
Hubbard, 05 [Glenn Hubbard, Dean of Columbia Business School and Former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, July 4
2005, Business Week, ―CAFTA: A Win-Win Case‖, <http://www0.gsb.
columbia.edu/faculty/ghubbard/Articles%20for%20Web%20Site/Business%20Week/CAFTA%20%20A%20Win-
Win%20Case%207.4.05.pdf>]
President George W. Bush is pressing Congress to ratify the Central American- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA). The agreement between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua faces a skeptical Congress. But legislators should send CAFTA legislation to the President for his signature for a simple
reason: It will improve economic conditions in Central America -- and in the U.S. The economic case for CAFTA is compelling. First,
the level playing field created by the pact would benefit U.S. consumers and businesses. Currently about 80% of Central American
products enter the U.S. duty-free. CAFTA would provide some balance with reciprocal treatment for U.S. goods and agricultural
exports, and all tariffs on U.S. goods would be eliminated over time. CAFTA would also require increased transparency in corporate
governance, legal systems, and due process in the region, strengthening the local economies. For U.S. business, the newly expanded access to the region would
benefit companies in financial services, telecommunications, entertainment, and computer services. CAFTA, moreover, would create jobs in Central America and make the region's economies more competitive with Asian
nations. Critics of CAFTA claim that the pact -- patterned after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- will lead to losses of jobs and production in the U.S. But experience suggests otherwise as access to
foreign markets allows U.S. producers to expand exports -- and hiring. Under NAFTA, for example, Mexico eliminated tariffs on light trucks. U.S. exports of motor vehicles to Mexico increased more than sixfold from the
                                                                                                                    enforcing the
five years preceding NAFTA to the five years after NAFTA took effect. Some U.S. labor leaders have also voiced concern about working conditions in Central America. They can be improved. But
region's existing laws and opening markets, which can lead to higher wages, are the fastest route to improving workers' lots. It‘s the U.S.
Sugar Industry – legendary for its brazenness in seeking government protections -- that has mounted the most vociferous attack on CAFTA. While U.S. agriculture relies increasingly on foreign markets, sugar suppliers
distance themselves from overseas competition by leaning on a quota system that boosts sugar prices for U.S. consumers by about $2 billion annually, according to the Government Accountability Office. Apparently, even the
                                                                            . There are foreign policy reasons to favor the CAFTA
1% increase in sugar imports from Central America to be allowed under CAFTA is too much for powerful U.S. sugar interests
accord. Since the 1970s, CAFTA nations have moved toward market economies and democracy, becoming commercial and political
allies of the U.S. CAFTA's boost to economic growth and incomes in Central America would further bolster support for free markets
and democratic institutions. Such logic has shaped U.S. policy for more than two decades, starting with President Ronald Reagan's
1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, which was expanded in 2000 under President Bill Clinton. This commitment's credibility would be
bolstered by the success of CAFTA. Conversely, failure to ratify CAFTA will undermine U.S. influence in the region. A CAFTA
failure also could slow the momentum of trade initiatives far beyond Central America. A broader Latin American trade deal
incorporating Argentina, Brazil, and the region's other efficient food producers depends on CAFTA's passage.




                                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                   The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            84/165


                                      SOLVENCY – COMPETITIVENESS

Solves competitiveness – trade is the cornerstone of our economy and collaboration with Latin America through the
Columbian FTA both sides benefit significantly, allowing us to become more competitive globally through mutual cooperation
– that‘s Corker.

The Colombia FTA will level the playing field for US businesses and make it possible for them to compete on the global
market
PR Inside, 3/16/08, http://useu.usmission.gov/Article.asp?ID=9d6408cd-bd41-491a-b632-3034220e8f7b
The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will level the playing field for U.S. businesses and workers. Over 90 percent of imports from
Colombia now enter our country duty-free, but U.S. industrial and consumer exports to Colombia face tariffs up to 35 percent, and
many U.S. agricultural products face much higher tariffs. Once implemented, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on more than 80
percent of American exports of industrial and consumer goods immediately and 100 percent of American exports over time. This
agreement will provide U.S. companies and farmers that export to Colombia with duty-free access to this large and growing market.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              85/165


                                            SOLVENCY – DEMOCRACY

Rejection of the Columbian FTA tanks democracy promotion in Latin America – we isolate the best internal link to the
Diamond evidence, which cites global democracy promotion, not democracy in the United States – means only we solve the
aff – that‘s Burns

Colombia FTA key to Latin American democracy and economic growth
PR Inside, 3/16/08, http://useu.usmission.gov/Article.asp?ID=9d6408cd-bd41-491a-b632-3034220e8f7b
The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will advance America's national security interests in a critical region, strengthen a
courageous ally in our hemisphere, and help boost our economy at a vital time. During the 16 months since the Colombia free
trade agreement was signed, the Administration has worked closely with Congress to seek a bipartisan path for considering the
agreement. President Bush and his Administration have worked with Congressional leaders to set a schedule for the consideration
of the Colombia free trade agreement. The need for this trade agreement is too urgent and the stakes for national security are too
high to allow this year to end without a vote. Congress needs to move forward with the Colombia free trade agreement and
approve it as quickly as possible.
The Colombia free trade agreement will advance our national security by strengthening a key democratic ally and sending a clear
message to the region. The agreement with Colombia will bring increased economic opportunity to the people of Colombia
through sustained economic growth, new employment opportunities, and increased investment. This trade agreement will
reinforce democracy by helping in the fight against corruption, and encouraging transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.
Approval of the agreement will bolster one of our closest friends in the hemisphere and rebut those in Latin America who say the
United States cannot be trusted to keep its word.

The Colombia FTA is key to US democracy promotion
Latin Business Chronicle, 7/28/08, http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=2610
I fail to understand how the US Congress is going to explain to the world in general and Latin America in particular that it stands for
democracy in the Hemisphere while shunning the US-Colombia free trade agreement. Over the past six years, Colombia has made
every possible effort to reduce violence, drug trade, and human rights violations. Colombia has further stood up bravely to the FARC's
extortionist practices, which have kept villages under siege, individuals kidnapped, and drug distribution on schedule. The business
community has agreed to higher taxation rates to be able to finance the war against terrorism without disturbing macroeconomic
balances. Colombia is one of the US' best trading partners, and the free trade agreement will certainly increase US exports to
Colombia. More recently, the Colombian government executed a rescue operation that liberated not only the French-Colombian
celebrity Ingrid Betancourt but also three US citizens. The free trade agreement would allow Colombia to lock in this progress by
continuing to grow and through growth create jobs and better economic conditions for its citizens. These jobs are also essential to
secure the peaceful integration of FARC members into society. Should the US Congress refuse to take a vote on this very important
agreement for Latin America's democratic development, the signal to the region will clearly be to seek other allies that would better
understand the beneficial impact of trade for democratic growth. But anything is possible during an election year in the US, and it
unfortunately seems very likely that Speaker Pelosi would rather prevent this vote from taking place than engaging in a discussion
over short-term quick fixes versus long-term economic and political gains for both the US and Colombia.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       86/165


                           *** BIOFORTIFICATION COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                           The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                    87/165


                                                 BIOFORTIFICATION 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should allocate all necessary resources for the research and
application of plant breeding biofortification technologies.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Hunger
Government investments in bio-fortification solves world hunger
David Kern 2006, Drexel University ―The Role of Genetically Modified Food‖ http://www.udel.edu/GPPC/kern2006.htm
Investments in plant breeding research and dissemination are far lower and potentially long lasting. Benefits of agricultural
research at a central location can be spread throughout the world and across time. Breeding for staple plants with high
micronutrient content in their seeds, referred to as ‗biofortification‘, treats the underlying cause of lack of nutrients. Although plant
breeding can involve relatively long lead times of 8–10 years before nutritious varieties can be developed and their adoption by
farmers can be initiated, such a strategy is sustainable once breeding has been completed, and seeds have been dispersed and
adopted by farmers. During the research and development stage the US can continue with their present system of providing help.
Biofortification has the potential to provide coverage for remote rural populations, which present supplementation and fortification
programs may not reach, and it inherently targets the poor who consume high levels of staple foods and not much else.
Development of varieties of rice or wheat high in iron and zinc using conventional breeding might cost as much as $42 million
over 10 years, including the costs of nutrition safety and efficacy tests, the costs of distribution in selected regions, and the costs of
an evaluation of nutritional and economic impact. Such an investment is projected to have far reaching impacts if efficacy and
effectiveness are achieved. A large part of the costs will shrink over time as the major research and development will occur in the
very beginning and then as time goes on less money needs to go into these processes as the GM foods are fine tuned. The $42
million cost over 10 years is a $1.25 billion difference compared to our current strategy. In one scientific model it was
conservatively estimated that in the long run (11-25 years) a total of 44 million cases of anemia would be prevented if nutritionally
improved varieties were to be adopted on 10% of rice and wheat areas in Bangladesh and India (Hunt 2002). That is a very big
step in the direction to relieving world hunger.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                           The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                    88/165


                                             SOLVENCY – FOOD IMPACTS

Research for bio-fortification of genetically modified foods is key to solving back global hunger – genetically modified foods
have greater a significantly greater nutritional value than they normally would have – breeding processes for staple foods such
as rice then get used in other countries, solving not just U.S. but global hunger – that‘s Kern.

GMO‘s key to solve nutrition and world hunger
David Kern 2006, Drexel University ―The Role of Genetically Modified Food‖ http://www.udel.edu/GPPC/kern2006.htm
The debate surrounding genetically modified foods much of the time comes down to the subject of confronting world hunger. A
main goal of GM foods is that they make it possible to solve world hunger. Critics of this theory, though, believe that the reality of
GMOs is that they will become, or already are, a victim of our corporate world, and that the world hunger issue will never be
approached. This, though, isn‘t an accurate criticism and I will explain why shortly. First I want to concentrate on how genetically
modified foods can help alleviate famine in third world countries.
As stated before many countries depend on grains, specifically rice, as their main source of food. Many of these countries, the ones
we are concerned with here, are poverty stricken third world countries. Because these people rely on rice for such a big part of
their diets, it is important that there is actually nutritional value in the rice. The problem is that there naturally isn‘t a whole lot of
nutritional nourishment in rice and other grains. The biggest malnutrition problem in these countries is iron deficiency and lack of
Vitamin A. People may not feel hungry, because they are eating, but their bodies are breaking down from anemia, which can lead
to poor eye sight, impaired growth, cognitive development, higher rate of sickness, and even high mortality. It‘s because of all this
that the general problem of poor dietary quality has been dubbed ‗hidden hunger‘. Genetic modification can solve this problem.
The potential benefits of improving the nutritional quality of foods are higher for low-income countries, where food budgets
account for two-thirds or more of total expenditures and where poor dietary quality and micronutrient malnutrition are widespread
(Shunker 2003). Most consumers in rich countries have access to a relatively inexpensive supply of safe and healthy food.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       89/165


                           *** CLEAN WATER SRF COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                90/165


                                               CLEAN WATER SRF 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should fully fund the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
Enforcement guaranteed.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits.

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Water Pollution
Clean Water SRF faces cuts now – Need of $4 billion for projects in New York
Governor David A. Paterson, ―GOVERNOR PATERSON URGES CONGRESS TO PASS SECOND STIMULUS PACKAGE,‖
WBNG News, July 18, 2008
<http://www.wbng.com/news/local/25622184.html>
Similarly, investments in our nation‘s deteriorating wastewater infrastructure would allow projects already in the queue to get
underway. Recent dramatic cuts in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) mean that the ability of states and municipalities
to address critical wastewater infrastructure needs is compromised. In New York State, there is an immediate need of over $4 billion
for 390 separate projects. In the long term, the need is much greater: $36.2 billion over 20 years. Congress should include significant
funding for the CWSRF, to help close the gap between the CWSRF‘s historical high funding level and President Bush‘s FY2009
request.

Clean Water SRF solves water pollution on a grass root level – Missouri proves
Seneca News, ―Department Issues 2009 State Revolving Fund Intended Use plans,‖Tuesday, June 24, 2008
<http://www.senecanewsdispatch.com/articles/2008/06/24/news/news1041-50.txt>
Each year, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources prepares a plan describing how it intends to use state and federal funds to
assist public entities with construction of water and wastewater infrastructure. The department has published the final plans and made
them available on the Web. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund are the
department's major infrastructure funding programs. Since 1989, the State Revolving Fund has provided more than $2.1 billion to 240
Missouri communities to construct and improve wastewater treatment and drinking water facilities.Towns and cities across Missouri
have saved more that $573 million dollars in interest charges compared to conventional, higher interest rates of financing. The
Department of Natural Resources uses most of the available funds to make low-interest loans to municipalities, water and sewer
districts and other eligible entities for the construction of water and wastewater facilities. The loans, provided through the State
Revolving Fund, help recipients comply with state and federal clean water and safe drinking water laws and protect public health. A
small percentage of funds are used to cover administrative costs and provide compliance assistance. In addition to the State Revolving
Fund, the department also provides funding for water and wastewater infrastructure with funds made available through the sale of state
Water Pollution Control Bonds. Programs funded through the sale of state Water Pollution Control Bonds include the 40 Percent State
Construction Grant Program, Rural Water and Sewer Grant Program and the Small Borrower Program.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 91/165


                                         SOLVENCY – WATER POLUTION

Clean Water State Revolving Funds solve water issues at the local level – its empirically proven that SRFs have generated
cleaner water by improving water treatment facilities and solving for local water pollution, and this directly solves back for
public health – that‘s Seneca News

Clean Water SRF provides the necessary funding – Ohio proves
Kevin Risner, ―Sen. Voinovich working to find funding for water and sewer projects,‖ Advertiser Tribune, June 22, 2008
<http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/id/506912.html?nav=5005>
Voinovich said in the same speech Congress created the Clean Water SRF program in 1987 to replace the construction grants program
of the Clean Water Act. Under the construction grants program, the federal government paid up to 75 percent of the cost of a
wastewater infrastructure project, he said. ―Under this program, our country made a substantial amount of progress to clean our
water,‖ Voinovich said. ―Since then, states and localities have used the Clean Water SRF loan program to help meet critical
environmental infrastructure financing needs... In many states, the need for public wastewater system improvements greatly exceeds
typical Clean Water SRF funding levels. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, a level of $1.35 billion was appropriated for the Clean
Water SRF program. However, in Ohio alone, about $7.4 billion in needs have been identified.‖

Clean Water SRF solves water pollution - financial sustainability
BENJAMIN H GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,―CLEAN
WATER ISSUES,‖ CQ Congressional Testimony, January 19, 2007 Friday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 3093 words,
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, lexis
The creation of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) was a major milestone on the path to financial sustainability for our
wastewater infrastructure.With the help of federal capitalization grants, the States provide low interest loans for water infrastructure
projects through their individual CWSRFs. Since loan repayments allow the funds to "revolve" over the long-term, the CWSRFs will
become self-sustaining. For nearly twenty years, the CWSRF program has played a significant role in helping to finance water
infrastructure, a role that will continue over the long-term. Over this time period, EPA has provided more than $24 billion to help
capitalize the state-run programs. In combination with state monies and recycled loan repayments, the CWSRFs have been able to
"leverage" the Federal investment into $61 billion to fund worthy water infrastructure projects. 2006 marks an important milestone in
the CWSRF: it is the first time that over $5 billion in assistance was provided in any one year. February 4, 2007 marks the 20th
anniversary of the passage of the Clean Water Act amendments that authorized the CWSRF program. The CWSRF has helped
thousands of communities throughout the United States finance water infrastructure improvements. Working with our State partners,
EPA continues to explore how we may further expand the benefits of the CWSRF to more communities and more people. By
promoting investment in sustainable infrastructure and encouraging greater creativity in project planning and development, the
CWSRF will remain an important financing tool for many years to come. The CWSRF is evolving as it is revolving. In recent years,
the CWSRF program has undertaken an ambitious effort to add environmental and public health related information to its strong
financial record. In 2005, states began linking projects to a river, lake, or stream and to designated beneficial uses of that body of
water such as fishing and swimming to demonstrate the potential environmental value of the CWSRFs. As of January 2007, states
have provided water body information on $11.1 billion of their CWSRF loans. The information indicates these loans support the goals
of the Clean Water Act with $7.4 billion used to fund projects in water bodies with a designated use of freshwater fishing and $7.8
billion for projects in water bodies with designated recreational uses. EPA is committed to helping our partners sustain progress and
increase opportunities for state revolving funds through financial stewardship, innovation, and collaboration. The CWSRF program
demonstrates the power of partnerships to leverage, innovate, and excel to meet wastewater infrastructure, watershed protection, and
community health needs.The CWSRF is now and will continue to be a critical tool for capital financing of our Nation's wastewater
infrastructure. But, it is not the only tool. Other aggressive and innovative actions and technologies are crucial to solving the Nation's
water infrastructure needs.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               92/165


                                              SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS

The lack of Clean Water SRF hurts water infrastructure in states
James M. Inhofe, ―Hearing: Full Committee hearing entitled, ―Hearing on the President‘s Proposed EPA Budget for FY 2009,‖ U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Wednesday, February 27, 2008
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Statement&Statement_ID=614c0ce7-1b7a-4061-9142-
701e71673dd9>

As I have indicated, I will once again be supporting efforts to restore the large cut you proposed to the critical Clean Water SRF
program. There is a nationwide crisis and a need for more water infrastructure money that is acknowledged by this Administration. In
the recent Clean Watershed Needs Survey, you calculated over $200 billion in need for publicly owned treatment works. While I
continue to disagree with your cuts to the SRF, I am pleased to see that the Administration has again proposed lifting the cap on
private activity bonds for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. I look forward to working with the Administration to see if
using the tax code through private activity bonds would help fill some of the infrastructure gap, given the shortage of appropriated
dollars. While public-private partnerships are not the sole solution, we need to do everything we can to encourage them since we will
never be able to fully fund our infrastructure needs.Compounding this lack of water infrastructure funding are the many costly new
regulations imposed on localities. In Oklahoma, we continue to have municipalities struggling with the arsenic rule and with the
Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule. Small systems who purchase water from alternative systems and have not had to test,
treat, or monitor their water must now comply with DBPII. In EPA‘s most recent drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified
$4.8 billion in infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. $107 million of that need is to meet federal drinking water standards. This
does not include costs imposed by Oklahoma communities to meet federal clean water requirements, the new Groundwater rule, the
Disinfection Byproducts Stage II rule or the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. As you know, I have been in
communication with your office about these rules and their impact on Oklahoma. I am looking forward to continuing to work with you
to devise ways to assist these communities in reaching these drinking water standards.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             93/165


                                            INHERENCY EXTENSIONS

Clean Water SRF faces cuts despite fundraising
Eben Wyman, ―Congressman Clean Water,‖ Inside Washington, April 2007
<http://utilitycontractoronline.com/pdf/2007-04/uc_42-43.pdf>

A lawmaker with an unparalleled ability to keep his eye on the prize and find ways to reach consensus, Oberstar made reauthorization
of the Environmental Protection Agency‘s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) his first order of business.3 In fact, annual
funding would have been dropped from at least $1.35 billion between 1994 and 2004 to a mere $688 million in FY 2007 if it hadn‘t
been for new leaders in Congress who raised FY2007 funding to $1.1 billion. Despite this success, the fact remains: SRF reauthoriza-
tion is needed and needed now.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               94/165


                                              POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

Clear Water SRF is unpopular – the fact it‘s being cut now proves the federal government doesn‘t want to fund it
James M. Inhofe, ―Hearing: Full Committee hearing entitled, ―Hearing on the President‘s Proposed EPA Budget for FY 2009,‖ U.S.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Wednesday, February 27, 2008
<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Statement&Statement_ID=614c0ce7-1b7a-4061-9142-
701e71673dd9>
The Administration has proposed $7.14 billion for the EPA for fiscal year 2009. This is a $330 million, or 4.4 percent, cut from the
2008 level. Given the continuing global war on terror and the large deficit, I think it is necessary to make some tough choices and cut
wasteful spending out of the federal budget. I‘m getting tired of saying this, but once again the budget does not make enough tough
choices. Over half of the total proposed cuts comes from the Clean Water SRF, regional water programs, and other Congressional
priorities that the Administration knows Congress will likely restore. It seems as if the determining factor for cutting a program‘s
funding was if Congress increased funding for that program above the Administration‘s 2008 budget request or directed spending.
These priorities are summarily dismissed as wasteful earmarks and stripped from the budget. Since the Administration knows
Congress will restore many of the proposed cuts, this allows the Administration to increase other programs; and at the end of the day,
no hard decisions are made.


Clean Water SRF is unpopular – Fiscal year 2008 gave it the lowest level of funding
Food & Water Watch, ―Clear Waters,‖ 2007
<http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/pubs/reports/clear-waters-clean-water-trust-fund>
While the federal government‘s Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which administers money to states for clean water projects,
contributes needed help, annual political battles over funding levels mean its assistance may not amount to much more than a finger in
the dike. Fiscal 2007 saw the Clean Water State Revolving Fund funded at some of the lowest levels in history, and for 2008 the
president has requested states be given a mere $688 million – the lowest levels since the program‘s inception. These cuts go even
deeper because of the manner in which the SRF is administered. Federal SRF contributions drive state funding, and for every federal
dollar spent on clean water, approximately $1.28 is contributed by states and leveraged from bonds. However, without sufficient
federal money driving the process, states must pick and choose from often hundreds of needed improvements. While not every state is
facing such a shortfall, major gaps are the norm for most. The end result is that states, already providing the lion‘s share of funding,
are unable to conduct needed maintenance and improvement projects. The burden often falls hardest on smaller municipalities, which
receive the majority of clean water loans and depend on low interest rates to meet their needs. Compounding the problem, states lose
potential jobs and increased tax revenues because they cannot afford to fund the infrastructure necessary for continued growth.


Clear Water SRF will spark a fight – Democrats are pushing it but excessive and unrealistic funding makes Bush threaten a
veto
Tom Ichniowski, ―House Passes Hike in SRF Aid,‖ Engineering News-Record, March 19, 2007, News; Pg. 12, lexis
Despite a threatened presidential ve- to, the House has approved a bill that would authorize $14 billion over four years in aid to state
revolving funds for wastewater treatment plant construction. The bill, passed March 9 by a 303-108 vote, was praised by construction
industry groups and is the first reauthorization of the Clean Water Act SRFprogram to clear the House since 1995.Fights over the
Davis-Bacon Act have helped block such water legislation for about a decade. But with Democrats now controlling the House, the
new bill requires Davis-Bacon prevailing wages on projects financed by the revolving funds. Davis-Bacon foes tried to delete the
language but lost a floor vote.The next step for the legislation would be in the Senate, where a companion bill had yet to be introduced
as of March 12.The House bill authorizes $2 billion for SRFs in fiscal 2008 and boosts the amount by $1 billion a year, to $5 billion in
2011. The legislation was scaled back from a $20-billion, five-year version that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved on Feb. 7.Those authorizations, however, are subject to annual appropriations, which have been far short of $2 billion.
Appropriations this year are $1.08 billion, up from $887 million in 2006. President Bush has proposed cutting the program to $688
million in 2008. The Office of Management and Budget issued a veto threat for the House-passed bill. One reason was its funding
levels, which OMB called "excessive" and "unrealistic in the current fiscal environment." It also objected to the Davis-Bacon
provision.If the bill does clear Congress and Bush vetoes it, its advocates can point to the House vote margin, which was comfortably
above the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The vote to drop the Davis-Bacon language was closer, 280-140 but still two-
thirds of those voting.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               95/165


                                                 POLITICS – POPULAR

Clear Water SRF is popular – Congress is making a commitment toward clean water policies
Tom Ichniowski, ―Clean Water Funding Bill Heads for House Floor Vote,‖ Engineering News-Record, March 5, 2007, News; Pg. 14,
lexis
Legislation to reauthorize a key clean water construction program, long a back-burner issue on Capitol Hill, is making rapid progress
in the House, to the applause of construction industry groups. Under its new chairman, James Oberstar (D-Minn.), the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee on Feb. 7 approved a bill authorizing $20 billion over five years in aid to clean water state revolving
funds. Lawmakers are hoping for a floor vote in March, a committee aide says.Industry officials' spirits are rising, and they think the
full House will pass the bill. "This is a big deal," says Steve Hall, American Council of Engineering Companies' vice president for
government affairs, who notes that the House hasn't approved a Clean Water Act reauthorization since 1995. Eben Wyman, National
Utility Contractors Association vice president for government relations, says getting a bill through committee so early in the session
signals the new Congress sees clean water as a priority, "which is a nice change."The measure's funding levels are strong, starting at
$2 billion in 2008 and climbing $1 billion a year, to $6 billion in 2012. The bill also calls for a Government Accountability Office
study of a clean water trust fund, a mechanism that many view as a long-term financial solution for a program that hasn't been faring
well in annual appropriations (graph).There has been no clean water authorization action yet in the Senate, where Environment and
Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has focused mainly on global warming. Adam Krantz, National Association of
Clean Water Agencies' managing director for government and public affairs, says Senate lawmakers "are committed to introducing a
bill." Boxer's panel has broader water jurisdiction than Oberstar's and needs to decide whether its bill also will cover drinking water
SRFs, Krantz says. Even if a bill does clear both houses with impressive authorizations, those sums would be subject to appropriations
each year. With non-defense spending under pressure, SRFs' 2008 appropriation probably will fall well below the $2 billion
authorized in the House panel's bill. Says ACEC's Hall: "I think correctly understands that we can't go to appropriators for more
money without a reauthorized program."Clean water bills have stalled in the past mainly because of fights over whether projects the
measures funded are covered by Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages. Pro-union House legislators defeated an attempt in subcommittee
by Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.) to delete the Davis-Bacon language from the bill.

Clean Water SRF is extremely bipartisan – Democrats and Republicans are both against cuts
Bruce Geiselman, ―EPA funding fight looms,‖ Waste News, March 3, 2008, COVER STORY; Pg. 01, lexis
It appearsPresident Bush 's proposed 2009 EPA budget will face tough challenges in the Senate, as Democrats and Republicans alike
criticized it Feb. 27 during an Environment Committee hearing with agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.One issue that united both
parties was anger over the administration's proposal to cut $134.1 million from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which loans
money to communities to upgrade their wastewater systems.``This is another one of the hardest hit programs, and it is heading in the
wrong direction,'' said Sen. Barbara Boxer,D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee.Her Republican counterpart,
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.,who serves as the committee's ranking member, agreed.Inhofe, normally a strong proponent of budget
slashing, said this was one area in which the cuts are unwarranted.``As I have indicated, I will once again be supporting efforts to
restore the large cut you proposed to the critical Clean Water SRF program,'' Inhofe said. ``There is a nationwide crisis and a need for
more water infrastructure money that is acknowledged by this administration.''Compounding the lack of water infrastructure funding
are the many costly new regulations being imposed on localities, Inhofe said.Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, accused the EPA of
forcing unfunded mandates on local communities regarding their wastewater treatment systems.``Continued cuts to the SRF program,
when EPA estimates the nation's need for wastewater treatment and collection at $193.5 billion, makes no sense,'' Voinovich said.
``This especially concerns me because my state of Ohio has one of the largest needs in the nation at $11.7 billion.''Voinovich said the
EPA is not stepping up to the plate to assist thousands of communities nationwide that are facing substantial costs to comply with EPA
orders.``I must tell you that from my experience as a former mayor, county commissioner and governor, I consider this to be an
unfunded mandate,'' Voinovich said. ``Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the impossible. If the federal government
is going to impose these costly mandates on struggling state and local governments, then it should provide funding and flexibility for
compliance with these mandates.''Voinovich also was critical of a nearly $15 million reduction in funding for the Great Lakes Legacy
Act in fiscal year 2009. The program has been paying for removal of contaminated sediment from the Great Lakes to improve water
quality.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                       96/165


                                  *** SATALITES COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              97/165


                                                     SATALITES 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should fund collaborative efforts between the Center for Earth
Observing and Space Research and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to establish disease surveillance
satellites that use remote sensing data monitoring

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Disease
Disease surveillance key to minimize outbreaks
Gilberto Vicente et al 2002 ―The Role of a satellite intelligent system in the development of a dedicated health and environment space
based mission‖ http://www.isprs.org/commission1/proceedings02/paper/00087.pdf
Satellite remote sensing for disease surveillance will play a major role in public health in the coming years. Although the ability to
predict epidemic outbreaks is still limited by current research and technology, satellite remote sensing has the potential to become an
important tool for assisting epidemiologists in locating areas where disease outbreaks are likely to occur. This will permit the
optimization of resources and save lives, especially in developing countries where health related resources are limited and disease
outbreaks have far-reaching social and economic consequences. In order to make satellite sensors reliable tools for epidemiological
research, we need to improve upon the capabilities of the current sensors, which are providing data on key epidemiological variables.
The most useful remote sensing systems for public health applications will require instruments which can integrate data and
information among spectral, spatial and temporal characteristics of remotely-sensed images and disease vector profiles. The ultimate
goal of an optimal sensor system, however, is to achieve the capability of using remote sensed data to monitor areas in real time and
predict disease outbreaks so that effective preventive actions may be taken. This goal could be accomplished through the creation of a
dedicated mission comprised of a collection of instruments and sensors tuned to acquire information directly related to the disease
organisms, vectors, reservoirs, hosts, geographic specifications, and environmental variables associated with health problems. To take
advantage of the intelligent space-based remote sensing systems potentially available by 2010 and beyond, we propose to initiate the
process of selecting the ideal suite of measurements needed for the development of a dedicated Health and Environment satellite
mission. The project will combine the flexibility and expertise in data management and product generation provided by the Center for
Earth Observing and Space Research (CEOSR) in the George Mason University (GMU) and its long-standing relation with the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               98/165


                                                SOLVENCY – DISEASE

Satellite disease surveillance solves comparatively better – their approach is to solve diseases once a pandemic has already
broken out – disease surveillance allows us to track the progress of diseases and enable us to predict where pandemics will
occur and then we can take steps to prevent the disease before it happens – that‘s Vicente.

Remote sensing stops pandemics before they occur
Jennifer Bender 6-Nov-2007 ―NASA technology helps predict and prevent future pandemic outbreaks‖
Research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Meeting in Philadelphia.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/asot-nth110607.php

With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‘s (NASA) Applied
Sciences Program, scientists have been able to observe the Earth‘s environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease
outbreaks around the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists in predicting the outbreak of some of the most
common and deadly infectious diseases today such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious
diseases to thrive depends on changes in the Earth‘s environment such as the climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area.
Through orbiting satellites, data is collected daily to monitor environmental changes. That information is then passed on to
agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict
and track disease outbreaks and assist in making public health policy decisions. ―The use of this technology is not only essential
for the future of curbing the spread of infectious diseases,‖ explains John Haynes, public health program manager for the NASA
Earth Science Applied Sciences Program. ―NASA satellites are also a cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are
already in orbit and in use by scientists to collect data about the Earth‘s atmosphere.‖ Remote sensing technology not only helps
monitor infectious disease outbreaks in highly affected areas, but also provides information about possible plague-carrying vectors
-- such as insects or rodents -- globally and within the U.S. The Four Corners region, which includes Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, and Utah, is a highly susceptible area for plague and Hanta virus outbreaks, and by understanding the mixture of
vegetation, rainfall and slope of the area, scientists can predict the food supply of disease transmitting vectors within the region
and the threat they cause to humans. Because plague is also considered a bioterrorism agent, NASA surveillance systems enable
scientists to decipher if an outbreak was caused by natural circumstances or was an act of bioterrorism. A particular infectious
disease being targeted by NASA is malaria, which affects 300-500 million persons worldwide, leaving 40 percent of the world at
risk of infection. The Malaria Modeling and Surveillance Project utilizing NASA satellite technology is currently in use by the
Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences in Thailand and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit located in Indonesia.
Data collected at these locations is combined and used to monitor environmental characteristics that effect malaria transmission in
Southeast Asia and other tropical and subtropical regions. Malaria surveillance provides public health organizations with increased
warning time to respond to outbreaks and assistance in the preparation and utilization of pesticides, which leads to a reduction in
drug resistant strains of malaria and damage to the environment. ―NASA satellite remote sensing technology has been an
important tool in the last few years to not only provide scientists with the data needed to respond to epidemic threats quickly, but
to also help predict the future of infectious diseases in areas where diseases were never a main concern,‖ says Mr. Haynes.
―Changing environments due to global warming have the ability to change environmental habitats so drastically that diseases such
as malaria may become common in areas that have never been previously at-risk.‖




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  99/165


                                                    NEW SYSTEMS KEY

New Systems key to public health management
Gilberto Vicente et al 2002 ―The Role of a satellite intelligent system in the development of a dedicated health and environment
space based mission‖ http://www.isprs.org/commission1/proceedings02/paper/00087.pdf

The key to using RS in future human health studies are having accurate, affordable, reliable, and accessible sources of satellite derived
geophysical parameters. At the same time there is a need to continue developing and deploying new instrument technology that
provide better insight into problems. New instrument technology, including hyper- spectral, SAR interferometers, and motion sensing
synthetic aperture radar need to be analyzed for application in human health research. Systems such as EOS and NPOESS that
incorporate multi-satellite systems, data production facilities and data archive and distribution abilities, need to continue. There is also
a need to continue working with the historical satellite data, such as AVHRR, improving the accuracy of products and merging them
with data from the newer satellites. In both cases the distribution of the data needs to be flexible enough to support different data
formats and map projections. Cross calibration of instruments and algorithms is critical to these efforts and should be a key area of
research for future instrument development. The ability to cross calibrate with respect to instrument, spatial resolution, and time
would allow comparison of data that is now very difficult if not impossible. While the development of a completely dedicated health
and environment space-based mission may not be possible by 2010, much can be done to extract the necessary information from the
current and future satellite missions. This include linking basic research, processing capabilities, training and outreach with
operational health and environmental applications and establishing stronger connections between the RS data/product generation
centers and decision support systems like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
Such actions will permit the optimization of the resources currently available for health and environmental applications and allow
necessary changes in the planning phase of the coming missions to accommodate the needs of operational applications in these fields.
On the other hand, the experience gained in the management, organization and delivery of remote sensing data as well as product
generation and integration by institutions like the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research (CEOSR) in the George Mason
University (GMU) are crucial. By focusing on research done from satellite platforms, including data, associated information
technologies and applications as well as fundamental science, CEOSR works as an interdisciplinary research center. It provides
needed infrastructure, including organizational and logistic support to research projects falling naturally within the focus of health and
environmental issues




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      100/165


                                        *** CRC COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 101/165


                                                          CRC 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Child Rights
Ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Child solves child rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html ―Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?‖
Earlier this year, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) began urging the Obama administration to ratify a 20-year old international
agreement creating a full range of human rights for children, it revived discussions about what role the promotion of human rights
should play in U.S. foreign policy. The answer is simple: as the world‘s lone superpower, the U.S. has the rare and important ability to
influence the behaviors of governments and people around the globe. Although the U.S. has played a key role in establishing global
human rights standards – the UN Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) was inspired in part by Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s Four
Freedoms speech, and partially drafted by his wife, Eleanor [i] – the country‘s credibility has been compromised because of its role in
recent human rights violations. With this year marking the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR, and it being the first time the U.S. has held
a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the timing couldn‘t be better for the U.S. to reaffirm its commitment to universal human
rights by ratifying international treaties. [ii] To date, the U.S. has failed to ratify several fundamental international agreements
intended to protect human rights, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(commonly known as ―CEDAW‖) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which provides a global framework for the protection of children by vesting them with specific civil, social, cultural, political,
and economic rights, is yet another example of a human rights agreement the U.S. has failed to ratify. Although the Treaty was signed
by the Clinton administration in 1995, it has not yet been ratified – an important distinction as ―signing‖ treaties is akin to a symbolic
gesture, while ―ratification‖ gives teeth to the agreement by creating legal obligations. Despite publicly stating its intention to ratify,
the U.S. still stands with Somalia as one of the only two countries to not ratify the Treaty, while worldwide atrocities against children
– including enslavement, torture, abuse, and abduction – continue daily.

(__) Soft Power
US ratification of CRC key to soft power and strong enactment of the treaty—show of strong commitment
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Over the last several years, the United States has come under intense scrutiny from domestic and international media and from
international governments and their citizens for its policies on U.S. military deployment to Iraq.[233] These policies were
criticized as being unilateral and as being developed without any heed to the views of the United States‘ historical allies.[234] Due
to the U.N.‘s opposition to the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq, the relationship between the two bodies deteriorated with U.S. officials
deeming the United Nations an irrelevant organization.[235] Although the United States has back-pedaled on this last point in the
past year,[236] U.S. ratification of the CRC now would be a well-timed show of support for the United Nations.
The political capital for supporting many of the provisions of the CRC is evident in current domestic legislation. For example, U.S.
public opinion polls consistently show a strong desire for improved education and health care systems.[237] Currently, eighteen
states have bills in their legislatures to provide for universal health care coverage.[238] The bi-partisan No Child Left Behind Act
was signed into law in January 2002 by President Bush, with the goal of providing a quality education to the most underserved
children.[239] The events of the past decade provide further reasons why the time has come for the United States to proclaim its
support for the CRC to the international community. The 1990s saw large-scale human rights violations due to intra- and
international conflicts in which millions of children lost their lives. Massive human rights violations against children occurred in
Bosnia-Herzegovena,[240] Chechnya,[241] Rwanda,[242] and the Sudan,[243] among others, in the past decade alone. Given
these occurrences, the need for passage of the CRC is as critical as ever. Ratification of the CRC by the world‘s only
superpower,[244] will give a needed boost to the enforcement of human rights law. This Article argues that the United States‘
ratification of the CRC will, as it has done with other treaties, give greater credence and international support to its principles.
Ratification will commit the United States and the world to better protection and promotion of the health, welfare, and security of
children.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                 The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                         102/165


                                                                        CRC 1NC 2/2

(__) Human Rights
CRC solves human rights cred—we are the only nation to not ratify
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In the United States, an estimated 1400 children die each year from abuse and neglect.[8] Over seventeen percent of Americans
under the age eighteen, or 12.9 million children, grow up in poverty.[9] The reality of these children‘s lives demonstrates their
need for strong protections. Commenting on UNICEF‘s ―State of the World‘s Children 2005‖ report, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said, ―[o]nly as we move closer to realizing the rights of all children will countries move closer to their goals of
development and peace.‖[10] In light of the plight many children face, it is not a surprise that the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child (―CRC‖) is the most successful U.N. human rights treaty with regard to the number of nations that have signed and
ratified the treaty.[11] In fact, every self-governed nation in the world has both signed and ratified the CRC, with a single
exception—the United States.[12] This Article makes the case that the time has arrived for the U.S. Senate to give advice and
consent to ratify this critically important convention. Part II explains the role that the U.N. plays in protecting human rights around the world. Part III
discusses the CRC and explains its different provisions. Part IV examines the United States‘ past treatment of human rights treaties. Part V explores the United
States‘ treatment of the CRC to date, including an analysis of the reasons for the United States‘ failure to ratify the CRC. Part VI responds to arguments against
United States‘ ratification of the CRC. Finally, Part VII explains why the time has arrived for the United States to ratify the CRC




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                103/165


                                            SOLVENCY – CHILD RIGHTS

Ratifying the Convention of the Rights of the Child will ensure a global framework for the protection of children through
providing specific civil, social, cultural, political and economic rights – that‘s Youn. At worst, take a gut check, we ratify a
child right‘s treaty – who do you think solves better?

Ratifying CRC boosts U.S. credibility and demonstrates our commitment to child rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html ―Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?‖
Overseas, the implementation of laws in furtherance of the Treaty has been largely successful. Recent reports from many of the 193
countries that have ratified the Treaty indicate that much progress is being made as a result. In countries such as Oman, Niger,
Romania, and Bangladesh, governments have implemented laws forbidding children in armed conflicts, combating child poverty, and
improving the health and well-being of children. The results have varied, from decreases in infant mortality rates to significant
progress in the area of education. Contrary to claims that U.S. children already enjoy the rights set forth in the Treaty, many American
kids still live in poverty, and nearly a million children suffer from child abuse or neglect each year. Though the U.S. may not face all
of the challenges seen in other countries, ratifying the Treaty will lend support to those countries and encourage the addressing of
challenges we do still face.In light of these considerations, it is not difficult to see why the U.S. should ratify the CRC. Not only will
ratification boost U.S. credibility overseas, but it will demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the basic rights and freedoms to which
all humans are entitled, worldwide. Global leadership, after all, is a privilege that we must not take for granted.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              104/165


                                            SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

Ratifying the Convention of the Rights of the Child is critical to restore soft power – as of now, we are the only country aside
from Somalia who hasn‘t ratified this treaty which is a slap in the face to the UN. Only by ratifying the treaty can we restore
our credibility – that‘s Rutkow

Only America and Somalia haven‘t signed on – other countries perceive this as arrogance, which decks soft power
Penny Starr. 11.24.08. ―‗Narcissistic Sovereignty‘ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children‘s Rights‖ CNSnews.com.
Senior Staff Writer. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39799
Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children‘s rights blamed American arrogance for it
not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean
international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their
children. The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and
Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on
Thursday. ―It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call,
narcissistic sovereignty,‖ Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the
American Psychological Association, told CNSNews.com. But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the
treaty should not be ratified. ―This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,‖
Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com. Smith said that if Congress ratifies
the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give
Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny. ―Every national
government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official
detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,‖ Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association
Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference. ―And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been
able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,‖
Davidson added.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 105/165


                                             SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

Ratifying the convention solves soft power – the US can distance itself from Somalia
Penny Starr. 11.24.08. ―‗Narcissistic Sovereignty‘ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children‘s Rights‖ CNSnews.com.
Senior Staff Writer. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39799
When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a
willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.
―It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,‖ Obama said. ―I will review this.‖
Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of
the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
―We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and
we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child‘s
survival, protection and development,‖ Gardinier said.

Failure to set a moral example crushes soft power
Kenneth Roth. Fall 2000. The Charade of US Ratification of. Global Policy Forum. executive director of Human
Rights Watch. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157-un/26883.html
The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US influence is built
not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem preoccupied with avoiding any American
casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as
influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being
tarnished if the US government is understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for
US citizens.

Every country in the world besides the U.S. and Somalia have ratified the CRC – ratification solves our contradictory stance
on children‘s rights
Nancy Brown (ACEI Representative to the UN) 2007: ―Summit for the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Mobilizing
Communities for Ratification‖, http://www.acei.org/summitcrc.htm

In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a comprehensive
international children's rights treaty that addresses children's civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The CRC sets goals
and standards that promote children's rights, thereby strengthening governmental initiatives to serve children and families. The treaty
recognizes the role and authority of families and the importance of governmental policies that ensure children's optimal development
in their families and communities. The CRC is organized around several guiding principles: the best interests of the child, protection
against discrimination, the child's right to survival and development, and the right to have a voice and freedom of expression. To date,
192 countries have ratified the CRC, making it one of the most widely ratified and celebrated international treaties. All the countries in
the world have ratified the CRC except two-Somalia (due to the absence of a formal government) and the United States.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                 The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                         106/165


                                      SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP

Ratifying the CRC solves for human rights credibility – not only are we the only country that hasn‘t yet ratified the treaty, but
this treaty has thus far been the most successful human rights treaty to date – a US show of support is key to reaffirm our
commitment – that‘s Rutkow

CRC shows US commitment to human rights
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In 1995 the United States signed the CRC, indicating its intent to support the CRC and pursue its ratification. Ten years later,
children, domestically and around the world, continue to face human rights violations. Until last year, the United States remained
the sole country in the world to condone the practice of execution for capital crimes committed by juveniles.[245] Even after the
Supreme Court‘s landmark decision in Roper,[246] the United States continues to stand alone as the only self-governed nation to
withhold ratification of the CRC. The United States should now reconsider action toward improving children‘s human rights. No
member of the U.S. Congress has called for ratification of the CRC since 1997. The analysis of legal, political, and social factors above
suggests that a window of opportunity has arrived for the United States to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and children‘s rights by joining the rest of
the world and ratifying the CRC. To that end, this Article proposes that Congress call on the President to seek advice and consent of the Senate for ratification of
the CRC. Attached to this Article is a proposed resolution urging the President to seek advice and consent for ratification.[247] The time has come for
Congress to follow the original intent behind the U.S. signature on the CRC with ratification, and, in doing so, make a definitive
statement about this nation‘s commitment to human rights.

Failure to ratify CRC hurts the US‘s ability to lead on human rights issues
Kenneth Roth. Fall 2000. The Charade of US Ratification of. Global Policy Forum. executive director of Human Rights Watch.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157-un/26883.html
This "know-nothingism" does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, Article 6(1) of the ICCPR prohibits the arbitrary deprivation
of life. Any honest assessment of whether the death penalty as applied in the United States violates this standard would benefit
from considering the powerful and sophisticated arguments of the South African Constitutional Court finding the death penalty in
violation of South Africa's new constitution. n11 Why should the global marketplace of ideas, so vigorously upheld by
Washington in other contexts, be judged irrelevant when it comes to rights protection?Of course, a US litigant could present the
South African court's rationale even under current law as persuasive authority. But under existing US law, US judges are unlikely
to pay much attention to these precedents because they are given no formal relevance to the interpretation of US rights protections.
By contrast, a system in which claims could be stated under the ICCPR would invite consideration of these global precedents. A
US judge might still decide not to follow a particular ruling by a foreign court or UN committee, but the process would at least
have been enriched by his or her consideration of it. Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has
begun to weaken the US government's voice as an advocate for human rights around the [*353] world. Increasingly at UN human
rights gatherings, other governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights. They see this approach
reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal to join the recent
treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court unless a
mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human
Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain
their lukewarm response to a US-sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             107/165


                                              AT: UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Treaty would not override the constitution
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html ―Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?‖

While some believe that, under the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty would trump all federal laws and undermine parental authority and
influence over a child‘s development, in actuality, the Treaty would not override the Constitution. For one, U.S. ratifications of
international treaties are often made with explanations or caveats (in what are called Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations
or ―RUDs‖) to acceptance. If the U.S. agrees with the general principle of the Treaty, but is troubled by a certain provision, it may
clarify or modify those areas of the Treaty before ratification. Furthermore, the Treaty is not self-executing – it cannot be
―automatically implemented without legislative action,‖ giving Congress another opportunity to clarify what the Treaty will and will
not mean for U.S. law.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  108/165


                                                   AT: CRC BAD TURNS

Their CRC bad turns don‘t take into account that every country can interpret the treaty as the wish
Jacy Youn (International Justice Project Legal Intern) 2009, ―Treaty Ratification: why should the US Ratify International treaties?‖,
World Organization for Human Rights USA, http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-why-should-us_23.html

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides a global framework for the protection of children by vesting them with
specific civil, social, cultural, political, and economic rights, is yet another example of a human rights agreement the U.S. has failed to
ratify. Although the Treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, it has not yet been ratified – an important distinction as
―signing‖ treaties is akin to a symbolic gesture, while ―ratification‖ gives teeth to the agreement by creating legal obligations. Despite
publicly stating its intention to ratify, the U.S. still stands with Somalia as one of the only two countries to not ratify the Treaty, while
worldwide atrocities against children – including enslavement, torture, abuse, and abduction – continue daily. While some believe
that, under the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty would trump all federal laws and undermine parental authority and influence over a
child‘s development, in actuality, the Treaty would not override the Constitution. For one, U.S. ratifications of international treaties
are often made with explanations or caveats (in what are called Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations or ―RUDs‖) to
acceptance. If the U.S. agrees with the general principle of the Treaty, but is troubled by a certain provision, it may clarify or modify
those areas of the Treaty before ratification. Furthermore, the Treaty is not self-executing – it cannot be ―automatically implemented
without legislative action,‖ giving Congress another opportunity to clarify what the Treaty will and will not mean for U.S. law.
Regarding parental rights, the CRC clearly recognizes the principle that parents ―have the primary responsibility for the upbringing
and development of the child,‖ and that parties to the Treaty are merely rendering ―appropriate assistance‖ to parents performing their
child-rearing responsibilities. In other words, ratifying the Treaty will not give the UN authority to control U.S. policies on children
and there is no language in the CRC dictating how American parents are to raise their children. In fact, the CRC frequently
emphasizes the vital role that parents play and recognizes the importance of a loving family atmosphere for the proper upbringing of a
child. Some opponents to ratification purport that, under the Treaty, parents will no longer be able to spank their kids. To those who
understand the language of the Treaty and the realities of its implementation, this argument is easily dismissed. At no point does the
text of the Treaty refer to spanking or corporal punishment of children. What it does prohibit, is ―cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.‖ It also protects children from physical and mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect, and maltreatment or
exploitation. Each country may interpret the Treaty as it so chooses, and many have defined such violence as beatings so severe that
they leave visible marks on the body. Overseas, the implementation of laws in furtherance of the Treaty has been largely successful.
Recent reports from many of the 193 countries that have ratified the Treaty indicate that much progress is being made as a result. In
countries such as Oman, Niger, Romania, and Bangladesh, governments have implemented laws forbidding children in armed
conflicts, combating child poverty, and improving the health and well-being of children. The results have varied, from decreases in
infant mortality rates to significant progress in the area of education.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                109/165


                                               AT: FEDERALISM TURNS

CRC doesn‘t destroy federalism – multiple safeguards in place
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Arguments that the CRC, if ratified by the United States, will upset the balance between the states and the federal government and
violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can be refuted both by the current state of the law and contemporary U.S.
practice.[177] First, federalism objections to the CRC are essentially negated by Missouri‘s holding that the treaty power gives the
U.S. government authority over the states that is otherwise prohibited by the Constitution.[178]
In addition, the United States has several policies in place to ensure that ratification of international agreements does not impair
federalism. First, U.S. ratifications of international treaties are accompanied by reservations, declarations, and understandings
(―RUDs‖)[179] that ―severely limit the[ ] application [of human rights treaties] in the United States.‖[180] This package of RUDs
traditionally includes a federalism clause, with the idea that ―the United States could leave implementation [of the treaty] largely to
the states.‖[181] This seeming contravention of the Missouri decision is reinforced by the ―the policy of the United States, when
ratifying human rights treaties, that those treaties [ ] make no significant changes to the American legal system.‖[182]
To further ensure that human rights treaties do not significantly alter its federal structure, the United States has declared that the
human rights treaties it ratifies are non-self-executing,[183] meaning that U.S.-ratified treaties do not automatically have legal
force, ―but must be implemented by legislative or other measures.‖[184] This non-self-execution is designed to deny judges in the
United States the ability to decide cases based upon the international standards created in human rights treaties.[185] Opponents of
the non-self-executing clause believe that the clause undermines the seriousness with which the United States should approach
human rights issues.[186]

CRC won‘t hurt federalism—RUDs and federalism understanding
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 2009, ―The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues‖ April 1, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
Advocates of U.S. ratification contend that possible conflicts between state and federal laws may be addressed through
reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) that often accompany treaty ratifications. The use of a ―non-self-executing‖
declaration, for example, would require implementing legislation to bring the Convention‘s provisions into use—thereby
addressing any potential conflicts with U.S. laws or values. In addition, a ―federalism‖ understanding would make clear that the
federal government would fulfill U.S. treaty obligations where it exercises jurisdiction and take appropriate measures to ensure
that states and localities fulfill the provisions. Other supporters of U.S. ratification, however, contend that the inclusion of such
RUDs would demonstrate the United States‘ unwillingness to fully implement the Convention.30 Some proponents argue that
instead of placing limiting conditions on U.S. ratification, U.S. law should be brought into conformance with international
standards when, in their view, the international standard is higher. Supporters of ratification also emphasize that countries with a
system of federalism similar to the United States—such as Canada and Australia—ratified the Convention.3




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              110/165


                                                AT: ABORTION TURNS

The CRC doesn‘t effet abortion – no floor or protection pre-birth
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
The CRC does not take a position on family planning or abortion issues.[214] Most observers assume that the CRC‘s authors
deliberately left the CRC‘s provisions on family planning open to interpretation by each of the ratifying States Parties.[215] Thus,
the CRC provisions may be interpreted as recognizing a fetus as a child in need of protection. Although the CRC defines a child as
a ―human being below the age of eighteen years,‖[216] the CRC does not establish when childhood begins. Although an individual
eighteen years or older is not a ―child‖ under the CRC, the CRC does not set a floor at which childhood starts. This omission,
coupled with the statement in the CRC‘s preamble that ―[t]he child needs special safeguards and care . . . before as well as after
birth,‖[217] allows nations who ratify the CRC to interpret Article 6‘s ―inherent right to life‖ clause[218] as applying to
fetuses.[219] Regardless of other nations‘ interpretations, U.S. law does allow the practice of abortion.[220] Because the CRC
does not violate any U.S. abortion or family planning law, its ratification by the United States would not result in any conflict
between U.S. domestic policy and international law.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                             111/165


                                                     AT: CHILD EXECUTIONS TURN

1. I dare them to advocate that executing children is a good thing

2. CRC‘s ban of juvenile executions is irrelevant – new U.S. court rulings ban executions based on CRC standards
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In addition to these general concerns, as already mentioned, one of the United States‘ primary reasons for failing to ratify the CRC
is because of the CRC‘s prohibition on juvenile executions.[187] Until March 1, 2005, this provision conflicted with U.S. law
because the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanford v. Kentucky[188] that there was ―neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of
capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age . . . . [S]uch punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition against cruel
and unusual pun-ishment.‖[189] Thirteen years later, however, in Atkins v. Virginia,[190] the Court outlawed capital punishment for the mentally retarded. The
Court held that ―in the light of our ‗evolving standards of decency,‘ . . . [capital] punishment is excessive and . . . the Constitution ‗places a substantive restriction
on the State‘s power to take the life‘ of a mentally retarded offender.‖[191]
In March 2005, in its landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons,[192] the Court sought to resolve the seeming inconsistency between
Stanford and Atkins. Christopher Simmons had planned and committed a capital murder when he was seventeen years old. After his eighteenth birthday, a Missouri
court sentenced him to death for the crime and the state‘s Supreme Court affirmed the decision in 1997.[193] After the Atkins case came down, Simmons filed a
new petition for post-conviction relief with the state of Missouri.[194] After the Missouri Supreme Court reevaluated Simmons‘s case in light of
Atkins and determined that ―a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders,‖[195] the Supreme
Court accepted the case on appeal to evaluate the juvenile death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,[196] prohibits ―cruel and unusual
punishments.‖[197] In Roper, the Court explained that the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
―must be interpreted according to its text, by considering h; contemporary practices regarding juvenile executions. It found that in the
last ten years, only three states—Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia—executed people for crimes they committed while juveniles.[200] The Court also noted that since
its Stanford decision, ―no State that previously prohibited capital punishment for juveniles has reinstated it. This fact, coupled with the trend toward abolition of the
juvenile death penalty, carries special force . . . in light of the particular trend in recent years toward cracking down on juvenile crime in other respects.‖[201] The
Court recognized this trend as part of a growing national consensus that ―our society views juveniles . . . as ‗categorically less culpable than the
average criminal.‘‖[202]
The Court stated that the differences between juveniles and adults are such ―that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst
offenders.‖[203] First, the Court recognized ―the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles‖ that results in almost every State prohibiting ―those
under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent.‖[204] The Court also found that juveniles are ―more vulnerable or
susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure.‖[205] Finally, the Court recognized that ―the character of a juvenile is not as well
formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.‖[206] The Court relied on these differences between juveniles and
adults to hold that ―it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably
depraved character.‖[207] In light of these observations, the Court pointed out that the two main justifications for the death
penalty—retribution and deterrence—would not be achieved by imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders.[208]
Finally, the Court recognized that the United States is ―the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the
juvenile death penalty.‖[209] The Court explained that while this observation is not controlling, it ―referred to the laws of other
countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition of ‗cruel and
unusual punishments.‘‖[210] In particular, the Court emphasized the CRC‘s provision prohibiting the use of capital punishment
against juvenile offenders.[211] The Court went so far as to state that ―the United States now stands alone in a world that has
turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
In light of the Supreme Court‘s definitive holding in Roper prohibiting capital punishment for capital crimes committed by
juveniles, the CRC‘s prohibition on juvenile execution can no longer be cited as a reason for postponing U.S. ratification of the
treaty




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                   The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                           112/165


                                                           AT: SOVREIGNTY TURNS

CRC has no effect on sovereignty—laws must still be passed by the Senate, recognition of international agreements is part of
sovereignty, and international law is already affecting domestic policy
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: ―Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child‖, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Although sovereignty concerns are frequently cited as a reason to avoid U.S. ratification of human rights treaties,[166] the manner in which these sovereignty
concerns are framed must be considered. Detractors of the CRC and other international treaties believe that being subject to international
law infringes on U.S. sovereignty. However, the United States can only be bound by international law through the exercise of its
own legislative processes. In order for the United States to become a party to an international agreement, ―a domestic decision-
maker [e.g., the Senate]‖ must accept the agreement and ―conclude[ ] that a non-U.S. rule should be a rule of decision within the
United States.‖[167] It is entirely possible that a domestic institution will decide that the United States‘ interests, both at home and
abroad, are best served by ratifying a treaty or entering a trade agreement. Such a determination can be viewed ―as the result[ ] of
an exercise of sovereignty, not as evidence of a lapse of sovereignty.‖[168] After all,
[A] sovereign nation can decide that its sovereign interests are advanced . . . by making agreements with other nations that limit what it can otherwise do. . . . Even
more, a sovereign nation can decide that its sovereign interests are advanced . . . by agreeing with other nations to delegate interpretive authority over treaties to
some supranational body.[169]
A sovereign nation‘s authority and ultimate success derive, in part, from recognizing when a multilateral or bilateral agreement
promotes that nation‘s political, economic, or humanitarian interests. The agreement may limit a nation‘s sovereignty in a specific
area, but it is a sovereign nation‘s prerogative to determine when such a trade-off is beneficial.
In addition, several recent Supreme Court decisions demonstrated that certain justices are willing to consider international law and
the laws and practices of other nations when drafting their opinions.[170] For example, in Grutter v. Bollinger, a case sustaining
the University of Michigan Law School‘s ―narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions,‖[171] Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg‘s concurring opinion cited the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as an
example of how the majority‘s ―observation that race-conscious programs ‗must have a logical endpoint‘ . . . accords with the international understanding of the
office of affirmative action.‖[172] A few days later, in Lawrence v. Texas,[173] which held that a Texas statute prohibiting sexual contact between consenting
adults of the same sex was unconstitutional, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that other nations also recognized the
right of homosexual adults to engage in consensual, intimate contact:
To the extent that Bowers [v. Hardwick] relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been
rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom . . . . Other nations, too,
have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners
seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental
interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.[174]
Even more recently, in Roper v. Simmons,[175] Justice Kennedy noted in his majority opinion, striking down the use of the death
penalty on individuals convicted of capital crimes that they committed when they were juveniles, that ―[i]t is proper that we
acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty . . . .‖[176] While, of course,
these developments do not alter U.S. sovereignty, they do show a growing recognition of the interconnectedness of the world‘s
nations and an acknowledgement that the laws and practices of other nations can influence domestic law


CRC has no impact on sovereignty—RUDs and no enforcement
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 4/1/2009: ―The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues‖ http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
Supporters of U.S. ratification maintain that federal and state laws generally meet the requirements of the Convention, thereby
posing little threat to U.S. sovereignty. They also contend that the inclusion of RUDs—such as a non-self executing declaration that requires
implementing legislation to bring the Convention‘s provisions into use—could address any additional sovereignty concerns.
Proponents further emphasize that under the Convention, the CRC Committee may only comment on the reports of States Parties
or make general recommendations. They emphasize that the Committee relies primarily on States Parties to comply with CRC
obligations and has no established rules for treaty non-compliance.3 Supporters also contend that enforcement mechanisms under
CRC are weaker than those of other human rights treaties ratified by the United States.36




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                113/165


                                                AT: PARENTAL RIGHTS

No worries—treaty upholds parental rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html ―Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?‖

Regarding parental rights, the CRC clearly recognizes the principle that parents ―have the primary responsibility for the upbringing
and development of the child,‖ and that parties to the Treaty are merely rendering ―appropriate assistance‖ to parents performing their
child-rearing responsibilities. In other words, ratifying the Treaty will not give the UN authority to control U.S. policies on children
and there is no language in the CRC dictating how American parents are to raise their children. In fact, the CRC frequently
emphasizes the vital role that parents play and recognizes the importance of a loving family atmosphere for the proper upbringing of a
child.

Current ratification efforts are not enough – our absence undermines leadership and our stance on human rights. The CRC
also concedes that parents are key to raising children – and has given numerous programs and services for them.
Human Rights Watch July 24, 2009, ―United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties‖
http://www.hrw.org/node/84594
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) promotes and protects the well-being of all children, and was the first international
treaty to integrate the full range of human rights-civil, political, economic, social and cultural-into a single document. It emphasizes
four key themes: the right of children to survival; to develop to their fullest potential; to protection from abuse, neglect and
exploitation; and to participate in family, cultural and social life. Issues addressed by the CRC include education, health care, juvenile
justice, and the rights of children with disabilities. During the negotiation of the CRC, the United States successfully proposed the
inclusion of articles designed to prevent child abuse, and to protect freedom of religion, expression, and association. Critics of the
CRC have raised concerns that its provisions would undermine the rights of parents and allow the UN to dictate how parents should
raise their children. However, the CRC repeatedly emphasizes the importance, role, and authority of parents in providing direction and
guidance to their children. November 20, 2009 will be the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention. Key points: The
Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only the United States
and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty. The conspicuous absence of the United
States among the CRC's states parties undermines the its international leadership role for children, and consistently raises questions in
UN and other international forums regarding the its commitment to children's rights. For example, for the past seven years, the US
(joined by the Marshall Islands in 2002 and 2004) has been in the embarrassing position of being the only UN member state to vote
against the UN General Assembly's resolution on the rights of the child, primarily because of the resolution's references to the CRC.
The CRC has now been in force in the majority of the world's countries for nearly two decades, and has led to a range of positive
impacts, including law reform, improvements in the access to and quality of programs and services for children and their families
(particularly in health and education), strengthened national institutions for children's rights, and more effective national coordination
mechanisms for children's rights. A significant legal impediment in the past to US ratification of the CRC-the use of the death penalty
against persons for crimes committed before the age of 18-no longer exists. In 2005, the US Supreme Court found the use of the death
penalty against juvenile offenders unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons). In 2002, the United States ratified two optional protocols to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child-one on the involvement of children in armed conflict (child soldiers) and another on the sale
of children, child prostitution and child pornography. In early 2009, the State Department initiated an interagency review of the CRC,
but it has not yet been submitted to the Senate for consideration.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 114/165


                                                  POLITICS – POPULAR

CRC not politically contentious—mini-ratifications prove
David M. Smolin, Professor of Law at Cumberland Law School, Samford University, and a Fellow of the Southern Center for Law
and Ethics: 2006 ―OVERCOMING RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD‖
Emory Law Journal http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/v20n1/SmolinCROP.pdf
The incorporation battle serves as a rough analogy to the situation with the CRC. While advocates for the CRC have argued for
ratification of the entire document, and opponents have opposed ratification, the United States has been involved in a process of
ratifying and implementing critical parts of the CRC on an article-by-article basis. The process has been facilitated by the central role
of the CRC in the children‘s rights movement. The CRC serves as a kind of umbrella charter whose broad terms are filled out and
implemented, often by additional treaties focused on particular issues. The failure of the United States to ratify the overall charter (the
CRC) has not stopped it from ratifying the treaties that elaborate upon various articles of the CRC. Ironically, this process of article-
by-article implementation of the CRC through other treaties has occurred without any real political controversy within the United
States and often with the active support of conservative religious communities. The support of the conservative religious communities
for these children‘s right treaties has been consistent with their broader support for human rights during this period.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            115/165


                                              POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

CRC is contentious—many issues to argue over
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 4/1/2009: ―The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues‖ http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
The question of U.S. ratification of CRC has generated contentious debate. Opponents argue that U.S. ratification would
undermine U.S. sovereignty by giving the United Nations authority to determine the best interests of U.S. children. Some
are also concerned that CRC could interfere in the private lives of families, particularly the rights of parents to educate and
discipline their children. Moreover, some argue that CRC is an ineffective mechanism for protecting children‘s rights.
They emphasize that countries that are widely regarded as abusers of children‘s rights, including China and Sudan, are
party to the Convention. Supporters of U.S. ratification, on the other hand, hold that CRC‘s intention is not to circumvent the
role of parents but to protect children against government intrusion and abuse . Proponents emphasize what they view as CRC‘s
strong support for the role of parents and the family structure. Additionally, supporters hold that U.S. federal and state
laws generally meet the requirements of CRC, and that U.S. ratification would strengthen the United States‘ credibility when
advocating children‘s rights abroad.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      116/165


                                   *** LEGACIES COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                           The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                   117/165


                                                         LEGACIES 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should enact policies that discourage legacy admissions in
institutions of higher education. We‘ll Clarify

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Racism
Legacy policies perpetuate white elitism and deny social mobility to minorities
Gary D. Gaddy ―To fight racism, end legacy admissions‖ Apr. 16, 2007. The New Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html
It is a great idea because it helps remediate the impact of past racist policies that excluded African-Americans from the campus,
except as groundskeepers, housecleaners and maintenance workers, thereby helping to keep these poor people poor. But all that
past isn't past us yet. The real, the literal racist legacy of UNC is not a historical artifact; it's a current admissions policy. In the
world of college admissions, legacies are the children and stepchildren of university alumni, and a "legacy policy" really means a
"pro-legacy policy," that is, giving preference to legacies in admission. Legacy admissions, by perpetuating the impact of past
discrimination, are figuratively the stepchildren of our state's racist past. In 2005 UNC's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate
Admissions reviewed then-current practices and "endorsed the general principle of legacy admissions." In 2004 it was reported
that UNC reserves about 80 spaces for out-of-state legacy students. For those against quotas, here's a "quota" to be against. A
purely merit-based admissions process provides advantage enough for these children who had the benefit of parents who were
Carolina grads. This is a real, undeniable and irrevocable advantage. Having grown up in educated and relatively well-to-do Tar
Heel families, these legacies are likely to be better students. I do not propose that we discriminate against them. This is a case,
where we must acknowledge that life's not fair and get over it. But we also certainly don't need to promote and enhance such
unfairness. As affirmative action for better-off kids, legacy admissions don't have much to recommend them as measure for
promoting equality or social justice -- but they are a good way of getting big donors to make big donations. And that's one of the
main reasons that they still exist.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                            118/165


                                                               SOLVENCY – RACISM

Legacies are a racist system by white supremacists used to justify letting rich lazy white kids into college in exchange for
expensive college research grants, while keeping out hardworking African Americans and keeping them in the lower rungs of
society – we control the greater internal link to racism because getting a college education is key to succeeding in modern
society – that‘s Gaddy

Legacy admissions perpetuate the inequality that resulted from slavery
Gary D. Gaddy ―To fight racism, end legacy admissions‖ Apr. 16, 2007. The New Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html
Because, even in the context of a supposedly non-discriminatory past, legacy policies still perpetuate the past inequities. Even if
Harvard in 1850 didn't discriminate against African-American students (which I doubt is true), since most of the African-
Americans were being kept as slaves and deprived of formal education, not many were ever admitted. This left Harvard, Yale and
other such schools with predominately white alumni and thus predominately white legacies. Legacy admissions aren't an issue for
non-selective colleges. Elizabeth City State University may or may not have pro-legacy admissions policy; it really doesn't matter.
Most applicants can get in anyway. Harvard, Yale and Princeton do have pro-legacy admissions policies, and they really do matter.
If you graduate from one of these fine institutes of learning, whether you learn anything or not (cf. George W. Bush, John Kerry or
any Kennedy), you may get to run the country. Many brighter and harder working students did not get the same chance, and most
no doubt have succeeded in life, but perhaps did not have the same opportunity to succeed at the national level. America is poorer
for that.

Legacy policies bypass affirmative action progress
Marybeth Gasman & Julie Vultaggio, Jan 22, 2008, ―Perspectives: A ―Legacy‖ of Racial Injustice in American Higher
Education‖ http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_10519.shtml
Yale has the Bushes, Basses and Whitneys. Harvard has the Astors, Roosevelts and Kennedys. Throughout the history of
American higher education, the nation‘s most prestigious colleges and universities have employed legacy policies that preference
the children of privileged alumni. In fact, during the early 1900s, prominent graduates of the colonial colleges, fearing that their
sons would be displaced in admissions processes, forced the hand of college administrators in myriad ways, such as threatening to
withhold donations and using their connections with university higher ups to pull strings. Conversely, according to Dr. Marcia
Synnott, the ―demand of upwardly mobile sons of Jewish and Catholic immigrants‖ for admission to the nation‘s elite institutions
initiated ―an institutional crisis, involving not only existing limitations of classroom space and campus housing, but also questions
of educational purpose — of whom to educate and why.‖ In the 1960s, as pressure toward racial integration intensified,
acceptance rates rapidly increased for children of alumni — in some cases, to as much as three times higher than that of the past
(Duffy & Goldberg, 1998). Given resistance on the part of historically White institutions to enrolling Black students during the
civil rights era, legacy policies may have furnished an excuse to reject racial minorities without resorting to the quotas that had
been used to exclude Jews and Catholics earlier in the century (Gasman, 2007; Thelin, 2004). As a result, Synnott writes, colleges
became ―citadels of Anglo-Saxon culture‖ and developed extensive legacy policies that continue to be used today. The primary
consequence, however, lies in the exclusion of groups whose parents did not attend elite institutions of higher education. First and foremost, it is important to
acknowledge the benefits that institutions gain from legacy admissions. Preferential treatment given to legacies keeps alumni happy, has the potential to increase
giving, and can strengthen the existing institutional culture. Generally speaking, most colleges and universities aim to have satisfied, generous graduates. However,
as Dr. Jerome Karabel argues in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, advocating for
legacy preferences with the goal of increasing alumni donations is becoming less persuasive as endowments soar over $20 billion. Likewise, while many colleges
and universities long for an institutional culture rooted in history and tradition, when that culture is built on a tradition of exclusion, perhaps it should be changed.
This quote from Synnott (1979) illustrates the issue: Knowing precisely what they wanted, the prep school crowd created collegiate life. For the most part, they
shunned honor grades in order to devote themselves to extracurricular activities: editorships, managerships, and athletic competitions. And not only were they
paying customers, but they could usually be counted on to contribute generously both their time and money to alumni activities and fund-raising campaigns (the
expectation of future support was less certain from students from lower income families). Because legacy admits are typically wealthy, White, fourth-generation
college students, they offer very little to colleges and universities in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. In fact, over 90 percent of legacy admits are White
Protestants, especially at highly-selective institutions (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Golden, 2006; Howell & Turner, 2004; Larew, 1991). Thus, legacy admits
ultimately reinforce the ―high-income/high-education/white profile‖ (Bowen et al. 2005) of elite institutions and systematically
reproduce a culture of racial and economic privilege.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      119/165


                                *** CONFERENCE COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              120/165


                                                   CONFERENCE 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should invite countries lacking in economic freedoms to attend a
Global Economic Freedom Forum, a Liberty Forum for Human Rights and insist that the community of democracies focus on
supporting real democracy

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Democracy
Counterplan solves democracy– only by promoting democracy globally can we ultimately solve the impact – wars can still
occur and spread among non-democracies – the counterplan is the only action that ensures spillover
Kim R. Holmes (one of Washington's foremost policy experts. He is the Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation PhD) 2008: Liberty‘s Best Hope: Why American Leadership is needed for the 21 st Century.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/hl1069.cfm
We cannot possibly revive the brand of liberty unless America takes a more proactive role in refashioning the international system.
In addition to a Global Freedom Alliance dedicated to security, we should form a Global Economic Freedom Forum of free economies
to champion and highlight the success of markets and economic freedom;
We should establish a Liberty Forum for Human Rights to work around the embarrassingly failed United Nations Human Rights
Council; and
We should insist that the community of democracies focus on supporting real democracy and not be a shield behind which
authoritarian regimes hide their contempt for freedom.
There is more to restoring American leadership than simply refashioning institutions. We also need to do a better job of reshaping the
perceptions of the United States of America. First and foremost--and this is very important--we must be seen as a winner. No one
wants to follow a loser. Some people think that if we simply walk away from Iraq, the world will miraculously embrace us and forgive
us for our sins. I don't believe that for a minute. Few things are held in such contempt as a fallen great power.
But prevailing in wars is not enough. We also have to learn to better calibrate our diplomacy and our military power. To paraphrase
Teddy Roosevelt, we need to "speak more softly but get a bigger stick." Words matter--they matter a great deal; but actions need to be
consistent with our words. I would go so far as to say that our actions should even speak louder than our words.
We have to do a much better job of persuading people that we are a leader who cares as much about our friends and as much about our
allies as we do about ourselves--about how to integrate the interests of other peoples into a global vision of interests and values that
we, and only we the United States as a global leader, can best represent. This is partly the challenge of a more effective public
diplomacy, but it also is about a President being capable of articulating a grand vision that is as inspiring as it is convincing.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            121/165


                                                SOLVES DEMOCRACY

Global democracy promotion is key to solve back their impacts – we have the greater internal link because Diamond is talking
about the importance of spurring democracy in developing nations – and we solve – by bringing other countries here for a
summit and showing them the benefits of a free market economy, we send them back to their own countries with a vision in
mind of how they can better their nations – that‘s Holmes

Counterplan Solves democracy – economic freedom spurs democratic growth
Anthony B. Kim (Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation) 2008: Economic
Freedom Underpins Human Rights and Democratic Governance
Greater economic freedom can also provide more fertile ground for effective and democratic governance. It empowers people to
exercise greater control over their daily decision-making processes. In doing so, economic freedom ultimately nurtures political
reform as well. Economic freedom makes it possible for independent sources of wealth to counterbalance political power and
encourages the cultivation of a pluralistic society.
Debate over the direction of causality between economic freedom and democracy has been somewhat controversial due to the
complex interplay between the two freedoms. However, the positive relationship is undeniable. Chart 2 shows the relationship
between economic freedom and democratic governance measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy index.[7] They are
clearly interrelated and together form a coherent whole.
It is undeniable that freedom has reached every area of the world over the past century. Economic freedom is a powerful building
block for advancing effective and democratic governance. Yet the world needs to be mobilized behind that cause more effectively, and
it needs to confront those who advocate ideologies of repression and extremism.
In his recent book, Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century, Heritage Foundation Vice President Kim Holmes
highlights the need to build coalitions of freedom-loving countries around the world. He suggests inviting countries to join a common
alliance of liberty through a "Global Economic Freedom Forum" and a "Liberty Forum for Human Rights" that would enshrine the
powerful interplay of economic freedom, human rights, and political freedom.[8]
Conclusion
As President George W. Bush once noted, "Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."[9]
This is why the United States should continue to stress freedom as a liberating moral force and the foundation of America's leadership
for the future. It is the compelling force of economic freedom that empowers people, unleashes powerful forces of choice and
opportunity, and nourishes other liberties. As the 21st century progresses, freedom's champions must join to advance their common
cause of freedom, peace, and prosperity.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      122/165


                              *** NATIVE GAMING COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                               The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                       123/165

                                                         NATIVE GAMING 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should amend the Indian Gaming Regulation Act to abolish the
need for Tribal-State compacts over Class III gaming regulations and the allotment of economic benefits associated with
gaming.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Self-determination and native genocide –
First, gaming is vital part of native americans ability to generate wealth – regulations make them dependent on the state
Anne McCulloch (Professor of Political Science and Chair of the History and. Political Science Department at Columbia College)
1994: ―The Politics of Indian Gaming: Tribe/State Relations and American Federalism‖
Gaming has both positive and negative effects for Indians strug- gling for economic and cultural survival. According to the NIGA, an In- dian gaming lobby, gaming
creates jobs, reduces dependence on welfare, stimulates business activity, and generates tax revenue for states. Drawn largely from consulting
stud- ies, the NIGA cites the following examples. Michigan Indian tribes operate 8 Class III gaming operations, employ- ing nearly 2000 workers,
with an an- nual payroll estimated at $13.5 mil- lion and state and federal tax pay- ments of nearly $700,000 (NIGA 1997). Minnesota's 17
casinos gener- ate $390 million in revenues and have created more than 12,000 new jobs. In 1992 , casinos paid more than $37 million in state and federal
pay- roll taxes and benefits. Approxi- mately 37 percent of the tribal gam- ing employees received state or fed- eral welfare assistance
prior to their employment, and another 31 percent were drawing unemployment com- pensation. Welfare payments in counties with
casinos dropped 14 per- cent between 1987 and 1991, saving the state an estimated $7 million (Cozzetto 1995; NIGA 1997). Wisconsin tribes operate 15 Class
III gaming facilities, with a total payroll of about $68 million. Half of the 4500 casino employees were previously unemployed, and 20 percent were re- ceiving welfare.
Welfare costs in 11 rural counties with Indian casinos dropped 26 percent over three years, saving taxpayers $470,000 per month
(Murray 1993). In 1992, ca- sino employees paid more than $380,000 in state income tax and $2.1 million in federal income tax. Tribal gaming operations spend nearly
$62 million each year, creating 470 indi- rect jobs in other businesses (Murray 1993; NIGA 1997). Tribal gaming in Washington State is estimated to have created 1200
jobs, with a total economic im- pact of more than $65 million in 1993. Unemployment on the Tulalips' reservation has dropped from 65 percent to
less than 10 percent since the tribe opened its gaming operation in 1991. The Tulalips' casino injects $25.4 mil- lion into the local economy yearly in
wages and direct purchases from lo- cal businesses (NIGA 1997). The Mashentucket-Pequots Foxwoods ca- sino in Connecticut employs more than 20,000 workers,
with an annual payroll of nearly $480 million. Every Foxwoods job supports 0.74 new jobs in the rest of Connecticut. Every new job trims 0.154-0.260 recipients from
Aid to Families with Dependent Chil- dren, saving the state between $9.6 and $16.0 million per year (NIGA 1997). These examples make a strong case for gaming.
Tribes, formerly de- pendent upon government programs, are developing new managerial and professional competencies through gaming. Thompson (1996, 55) asserts
that unlike public sector programs, gaming gives Native Americans a choice in the direction of their eco- nomic development. Gaming
repre- sents economic clout that brings tribal members together and con- nects their individual interests to larger national issues.
Gaming ele- vates the standing of tribes and helps them mobilize as an effective political force. Such political mobilization can
provide a training ground for younger leaders to cultivate the skills to effectively interact with non-Indians.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                  The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                          124/165


                                                           NATIVE GAMING 1NC 2/2

And state interference in gaming hinders native self-determination and economic growth
Dale Mason (Professor of Political Science at the University of New Mexico) 1998: Gallup, ―Tribes and States: A New Era in
Intergovernmental Affairs‖ http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/pdfplus/3331011.pdf
The states, however, were not satisfied with waiting for congressional action. As tribal bingo and other games of chance proliferated, law-
enforcement authorities in several states attempted to bring the games under state regulatory authority or to prohibit them entirely.
Florida and Califor- nia, for example, attempted to apply state law to gaming in Indian Country, the former on the Seminole Reservation and
the latter to games operated by the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, a small band of 25 enrolled mem- bers. Both states lost their argument in federal
courts that gambling in Indian Country should have to abide by the gaming statutes of the state in which such land is located. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Seminole Tribe of lorida v. Butterfield (1981),16a and the U.S. Supreme Court in Califor- nia v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987),16b held that a state's
general public gaming policy must be examined in determining whether a tribe's gambling operations are legal. In arguing that California
had the power to regulate gaming on Indian lands attorneys for the state wrote in their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that: The State has a vital
interest in prohibiting the tribal bingo games here. First, State gambling policy is frustrated if Indian tribes can market an exemption
from State gambling laws to non-Indians. Second, the tribal bingo games create a serious risk of organized crime infiltration....The
federal interest is, at most, neutral in this case.17 This latter assertion would seem to belie the Indian commerce clause. The state also argued that the
civil and criminal jurisdiction the Congress had given California over tribes in Public Law 83-280 included the power to regulate tribal
gambling. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Byron White, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's arguments. White reiterated the Court's long-held position
that tribes have "attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory" and that "tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and
sub- ordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States." White and the Court concluded that California's public gaming policy regulated rather
than prohibited games of chance in the state. As such, Public Law 83-280 did not extend California's criminal jurisdiction to tribal gambling. California's Indian tribes
were free to continue to operate high-stakes bingo and all other gambling that was legal under California law, including pari- mutuel horse-racing and "card parlors."
While Cabazon removed state interference in the realm of Indian gam- ing and on the surface reinforced tribal sovereignty, White's
dicta never- theless demonstrated that tribes remained "domestic dependent nations." He reiterated that the tribes are "subordinate" to
the federal government. While he also restated the long-held rule that tribes are not "subordinate" to the states, he acknowledged that the
Congress has the power to confer state jurisdiction over tribes if it is "expressly so provided ." State officials were not pleased with any aspect of
Cabazon, and this was reflected in the Congress. Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall has noted that: "States and state
governments simply said, let's stop the Indians, let's make them conform to our law and let's not let them have the freedom to
introduce other forms of gaming. Let's stop Indian gaming in its tracks before it gains momentum and enlarges the status quo."18 While
the first bill to regulate Indian gaming was introduced in 1983, the Cabazon decision and the spread of Indian gaming gave impetus to congressional efforts to bring
order out of the reigning confusion. Much of the impetus came from the states. The states, spurred by their defeats in federal court, widened their ef-
forts to gain control of the issue by turning to congressional allies who argued that states alone should regulate Indian gaming. They
made four major points. First, they contended that there is a need to control criminal activity associated with gambling and that the
tribes are unable to provide such control. Second, opponents of Indian gaming argued that the state would lose revenue if tribes or the
federal government regulate Indian gam- ing instead of the states. Third, supporters of state regulation argued that tribes lack
experience in regulating gaming. Fourth, those who favored state control claimed a lack of faith in the federal government's ability to
regulate Indian gaming. The tribes argued that the regulation of Indian gaming is an attribute of their sovereignty. Those tribes that
acknowledged that order had to be brought to Indian gaming preferred that it be done by the federal government rather than by the
states. The tribes also argued that they alone are entitled to the revenue generated by the games. They answered the law-enforcement
charge by pointing out that tribes with gaming have not experienced any serious law-and-order problems. Finally, the tribes contended
that gaming is a legitimate way to implement self-determina- tion and economic development. As Justice White had pointed out in Cabazon,
these two goals have been central to Indian policy for some time. During House and Senate hearings on proposed legislation, the scope of the intergovernmental and
federalism conflict was most often stated in- directly. However, from time to time, an explicit expression of the conflict as a federalism issue did emerge. Brian McKay,
Nevada's attorney general, told the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that: Excluding high-stakes gaming from state regulation is impru- dent law
enforcement. State agencies can best police gaming operations, a traditional function performed by these agencies....in our system of Federalism, state agencies are the
most appropriate entities to provide regulatory oversight of high stakes gaming operations.'9 John Duffy, chairman of the Law and Legislative Committee of the
National Sheriff's Association, echoed these sentiments in a letter to Sena- tor Mark Andrews (R-ND), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.
Duffy wrote that his association believes "that each state has the right to regulate gambling for all its citizens-Indian and non-Indian alike. It is
a question of states' rights."20 Indian tribes saw the question of federalism from an entirely different perspective. Repeatedly, tribal leaders and
representatives of Indian orga- nizations stressed the need to protect tribal sovereignty. Alvino Lucero, chairman of the Southern Pueblos
Governors' Council told Andrew's com- mittee that "[s]tate assumption of civil and/or criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations has serious
implications for erosion of tribal sover- eignty."2' Tesuque Pueblo GovernorJim Hena, representing the Gaming Pueblos of New Mexico, told the House
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that: "I want to point out to you that the United States Constitution envisions a federal system which has as its component
parts federal, state, and tribal governments," a contention with which most state officials would disagree.22




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               125/165


                                     SOLVENCY – SELF DETERMINATION

Native gaming is a key part of Native wealth and prosperity and has become an integral part of their identity – state
regulations hinder that development and force dependence on states which destroys their self determination – that‘s
McCulloch. Only the counterplan solves native genocide – regulating the gaming industry is just another way that government
is trying to control native culture and hinder their development – we control the greater internal link – that‘s Mason

Gaming is a boondoggle for native americans – key to self-determination and cultural revival
 Jeffrey Gudzune (Secretary of the Delaware Humanities Council) 2007 ―Indian Gaming: Economic Self-Determination‖, SUITE
101, April 20, http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/indian_gaming] tate
While progressive social programs and determined leadership have achieved landmark civil rights for Native Americans, the greatest
economic strides have been made as a result of one word—BINGO! Since 1988, more than 150 Indian tribes have established casinos
which have benefited the drive for economic self-sufficiency. How has the establishment of Indian casinos provided financial stability
for the tribes that have adopted them? Furthermore, how have casinos affected the development of Native Americans in general?
The concept of Indian gaming began with fund raising bingo games on reservation land. This was not a unique concept and was
employed by dozens of tribes throughout the 1970s. Many tribes, however, encountered legal battles with the states in which they
were located as these games garnered more attention. Such was the case on the Oneida, who generated a political firestorm over a
bingo fund raiser in 1975. The Oneida tribe of New York set up the game as a means of raising money for their fire department. The
state claimed the game was illegal as the prizes offered by the tribe were over the limit as outlined under New York law. The Oneida
argued that their recognized status as a sovereign nation (upheld by acts of Congress and Supreme Court precedent) precluded them
from such a limitation. The case was in the midst of a Supreme Court review when another similar situation arose, this time in Florida.
The Seminole Nation of Florida had established their own high-stakes bingo game in light of the Oneida‘s claim of sovereignty and
were subsequently shut down by the state. The Seminole sued under the same premise as the Oneida, arguing that as a sovereign
nation they were not regulated by state law. In 1976, the Supreme Court found that the states had no regulatory powers over the
reservations, thereby reaffirming the right of sovereignty. This decision opened the door for dozens of other tribes to establish their
own high stakes gaming industries; although some states responded by tightening their own gambling regulations and made their own
counter-challenges. More legal battles ensued.
The National Indian Gaming Association was created in 1985 to act as both an advisory board and advocacy group in order to
encourage other tribes to establish their own enterprises. A major victory came in 1987, when the Supreme Court once again
reaffirmed that the individual states had no authority to regulate the revenue generated within reservation lands in the case of
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. This ruling not only outwardly guaranteed the right of economic self-determination,
but, when applied to an earlier opinion (McClanahan v. State of Arizona Tax Commission, 1973), provided un-fettered income for the
tribes. Through the efforts of the NIGA, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which legally defined the right
of any sovereign tribe to establish a gaming enterprise. Furthermore, tribes were allowed to acquire new lands and develop full-scale
casinos—which they did. This act also provided for the establishment of the National Indian Gaming Commission, a government body
that ensures all revenue generated is the sole property of the tribe.
This decision has allowed over 150 tribes to gain economic self-sufficiency and has generated nearly $19 billion—money which has
been placed into social reforms, historic preservation efforts, and scholarship programs. Not only have Indian casinos provided
economic stimulus for those nations involved, they have also provided jobs to non-Indians and thus revitalized the economies of the
surrounding communities. While some degree of controversy still remains over the establishment Indian casinos, and there existence
is by no means a cure-all for the ills of economic stagnation, there is no doubt that the concept has lead to a cultural revival and a
reaffirmation of Native American self-determination.

Gaming fosters self determination
Gary Anders (professor of economics Arizona State University) 1998: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1049332.pdf)
These examples make a strong case for gaming. Tribes, formerly dependent upon government programs, are developing new
managerial and professional competencies through gaming. Thompson (1996, 55) asserts that unlike public sector programs, gaming
gives Native Americans a choice in the direction of their economic development. Gaming represents economic clout that brings tribal
members together and connects their individual interests to larger national issues. Gaming elevates the standing of tribes and helps
them mobilize as an effective political force. Such political mobilization can provide a training ground for younger leaders to cultivate
the skills to effectively interact with non-Indians.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               126/165


                                           STATES INTERFEREING NOW

Without federal regulation states will continue to trample on Native gaming rights
Brewer, (writer and journalist specializing in American Indian culture) 4-7-2005(last modified): The National Indian Gaming
Association ―Indian Gaming Regulatory Act History & Facts‖ http://www.indiangaming.org/info/pr/presskit/STATES.pdf
In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to regulate the flourishing tribal gaming industry. Indian Nations
have always had the right as sovereign governments to conduct all governmental activities, including gaming. Ironically, most states
were opposed to IGRA when it was initially introduced. Large scale tribal gaming operations predated IGRA by about 10 years. States
felt it was already within their rights to assert regulatory control over these operations; tribes disagreed. To protect themselves from
the states' efforts to limit gaming, tribes sought legislative insurance against an unfavorable court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in 1987 that states had no regulatory control over gaming conducted on Indian land (California v. Cabazon). Following that
decision, several states, led by Las Vegas gaming interests, reversed their opposition to IGRA and urged its passage as a way to have
some control. Congress consented in 1988 and IGRA, after being amended to give states more regulatory control though compact
negotiations, became law. IGRA recognized the right of tribes to conduct similar gaming on tribal land in states where such gaming is
permitted outside the reservation for any other purpose. Under IGRA, a state is obligated to negotiate compacts that lay out the
conditions, regulations and limitations for Class III gaming operations. If a state refuses to negotiate or to negotiate in good faith,
tribes can sue in federal court to force mediation. If a state refuses to implement a mediator's recommendations, the Secretary of the
Interior establishes the procedures for Class III gaming within the state. Faced with mounting losses in lawsuits charging bad faith
negotiations, states now want to change IGRA the same law they pushed so hard to see passed. States want more control to tax,
regulate and police gaming operations. States claim it's a violation of their sovereignty for Congress to subject them to the jurisdiction
of the federal courts for failing to negotiate a compact. The states further contend it's an unconstitutional intrusion of power to force
them to regulate Class III operations that they don't want operating within their borders. Despite their misgivings, tribes have
reluctantly accepted IGRA and have played by the rules in order to protect their most promising key to the future even though it has
meant an unprecedented infringement on their sovereignty. The tribes contend that the states should either play by the rules they
helped set or Congress should exclude the states from that process and return to the historical tribal/federal relationship. Indian gaming
is a right of Indian Nations, derived from sovereignty recognized by the Supreme Court and Congress. It is the only economic
development tool that has ever worked on reservations, bringing increased economic benefits to Indians and non-Indians. Several
tribes and states have demonstrated by example that, when given a chance, IGRA can work well to the benefit of all.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      127/165

                            *** CONJUGAL VISITS COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              128/165


                                               CONJUGAL VISITS 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should allow conjugal visitation in federal and state prisons

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Prison Rape
Conjugal visits solve prison rape – we have the experts on our side and studies prove
Rachel Wyatt (J.D. Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 2006: Male rape in U.S. prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the
Answer? Lexis
Experts who study prison rape claim that conjugal visit programs reduce and prevent male prison rape. n173 By allowing inmates to
spend significant amounts of time with their families, conjugal visits diminish the negative effects of the unisex prison environment
which can be "injurious to an inmate's masculine self-image." n174 Maintaining healthy bonds with their children and spouses helps
inmates reaffirm their masculinity, and reduces their need to establish a manly self-image by victimizing other inmates. n175 In
addition, conjugal visits may provide an incentive for inmates to refrain [*598] from engaging in acts of violence. n176 Recent studies
indicate that conjugal visits prevent the occurrence of prison rape, and some prison officials who work in U.S. prisons with conjugal
visit programs agree that they often "serve as a behavior-controlling mechanism." n177 There is also evidence that prison systems in
other countries successfully use conjugal visits to lower rates of inmate sexual assault. n178




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                129/165


                                             SOLVENCY – PRISON RAPE

Allowing prisoners to get a conjugal visit from a loved one significantly reduces the tendency of that individual to rape another
prisoner – not only are all of the studies on our side, but we also have all of the experts – prefer our evidence – that‘s Wyatt.
And even if we don‘t solve every instance of prison rape, neither can the plan, and good is good enough.

Conjugal visits solve prison rape – scholars cite existing programs in other countries
Rachel Wyatt (J.D. Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 2006: Male rape in U.S. prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the
Answer? Lexis
The focus group did not specify what programs it was referring to, but many scholars who study prison rape are presumably hopeful
that they are referring to conjugal visit programs. n21 For years scholars have proposed that giving prisoners' physical and emotional
access to their families through conjugal visit programs reduces the occurrence of male prison rape. n22 They propose that more
prisons in the United States begin allowing some form of conjugal visits in prison to reduce the incidents of prison [*582] rape. n23
They point to the use of conjugal visits in prisons in other countries as support for their claim that conjugal visits help prevent prison
rape. n24 For instance, several countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America currently allow prisoners to have access to conjugal
visits. n25 Prison officials from these countries assert that conjugal visits are a critical component in preventing prison rape. n26
Empirical support for these claims, however, remains scant. Despite the lack of evidence on the effect of conjugal visits, many
scholars still propose that such programs can successfully prevent male prison rape. n27
Beyond the United States several other countries have recently begun considering implementing conjugal visits programs to combat
male prison rape within their own penal systems. n28 Therefore, the research and recommendations of the Department of Justice's
Prison Rape Elimination Act Review Panel could be influential in shaping the practices of penal institutions beyond the United States.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                          The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                  130/165


                                    AT: RAPE IS ABOUT POWER NOT SEX

Rape isn‘t about power dominance over other prisoners – its about having sex
Rachel Wyatt (J.D. Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 2006: Male rape in U.S. prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the
Answer? Lexis
Critics of the conjugal visit theory argue that providing prisoners with sexual outlets will not reduce prison rape because prison rape is
about power, not sex. n184 Prisoners do not rape other prisoners out of sexual frustration; [*599] they do so to dominate and
humiliate each other. n185 Some experts contend that prison rapes are the result of power gratification, not sexual gratification and
that deprivation of sex or emotional attachment is not the problem. n186 As a practical matter, they argue that even if conjugal visits
do help reduce prison rape, implementing them will not help the majority of offenders, "because very few are legally married or have
common-law wives." n187
In actuality, statistics show that as many as 46% of inmates report being married at some point and half of these report they are
currently married. n188 Sociologist and psychologists also warn critics not to be so quick to dismiss the "devastating effects" that
"sexual isolation" can create. n189 One former inmate states that "of all possible forms of starvation, surely none is more demoralizing
than sexual starvation. . . . it makes very little or no difference to the average prisoner that the only available means of sexual
satisfaction are abnormal." n190
During one of the first comprehensive studies of prison rape in the United States, researchers found that the reasons why the rapes
occur were as much cultural and sociological as they were psychological. n191 Sexual assaults by prisoners were the inevitable results
of the frustration many prisoners feel, which "derive[s] from the same inability while outside prison to achieve a sense of masculine
identification and pride through . . . families, and social activities." n192 The researchers suggested that prisoners be allowed conjugal
visits to help relieve these tensions. n193
Proponents of conjugal visits agree with their critics that prison rape is not all about sex, but also point out that conjugal visits are not
so narrowly focused. n194 The term "conjugal" refers to the rights that are the recognized inherent rights of married couples in society
and "[s]ex is but one component of these rights." n195 Conjugal rights encompass the rights of a couple to associate together, build a
home together and enjoy all the privileges of an interpersonal relationship together. n196 Therefore, conjugal visits [*600] enable
inmates to enjoy these attributes while they are incarcerated. n197 Conjugal visits encourage and promote normal family behavior, a
critical component of the rehabilitation process. n198
An examination of existing conjugal visits programs in the U.S. supports the assertion that conjugal visits focus more on allowing
prisoners to spend quality time with their family, rather than on just giving prisoners access to sex with their spouses. Five states in the
U.S. currently allow some form of conjugal visits within their prisons. n199 Mississippi has permitted conjugal visits since 1918. n200
The visits take place every two weeks, and can last for up to three days. n201 Prisoners and their families are taken to eight by ten
cottages located on the prison grounds, which are equipped with beds and tables. n202 The families are allowed to have picnics, watch
TV, play board games and take naps together. Only prisoners in the medium or minimum security housing units are given the right to
have conjugal visits regardless of the nature of their original offense. n203 In New York, prisoners who participate in the New York
State Department of Correctional Services family program also have overnight visits with their families in homelike settings located
on the prison grounds. n204




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                131/165


                                                AT: OTHER PROBLEMS

AT: Prisoner lashout, smuggling, and HIV transmission to the public
Rachel Wyatt (J.D. Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 2006: Male rape in U.S. prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the
Answer? Lexis
Some prison officials seem to agree that prisoners should not have to accept prison rape as part of their punishment. n255 They
probably agree that the costly impact of prison rape on prisoners and society demands that something must be done to address the
problem and ensure that prison systems do all they can to combat its existence. Preliminary research indicates that many countries,
including the United States, successfully use conjugal visits within their prison systems to reduce male prison rape. n256 There are
still some prison officials, however, who contend that conjugal visits should not be implemented in prisons systems. n257 They assert
four primary reasons why conjugal visits are not a suitable solution to the problem of male prison rape.
First, prison officials assert that conjugal visits should not be utilized because they create negative feelings in inmates who cannot
participate in the programs because they do not have a wife or girlfriend. n258 The presence of inmates' wives increases violence
within the prison because other [*606] inmates who do not have wives get jealous and lash out at those who do. n259 Research into
the use of conjugal visits, however, tends to rebut the prison officials' assertions. For instance, a research study conducted in 2000
revealed that less than 15% of inmates have a problem with other inmates' use of conjugal visits. n260 Similarly, inmates who
participate in the programs claim that other inmates do not express animosity towards them just because they have wives and
girlfriends who visit them. n261
Secondly, prison officials argue that conjugal visits create other problems within prison systems by allowing drugs and contraband to
be introduced into the prison. n262 Conjugal visit programs allow inmates to spend unsupervised time with their families, and this
makes it difficult for prison guards to ensure that the inmates' families are not smuggling drugs or other forbidden items into the prison
during their visit. n263 Officials at the prisons that provide conjugal visits admit that there can be problems with inmates taking
advantage of the relaxed security measures. n264 However, they also assert that the possible flow of drugs or weapons into the prison
can be controlled with tighter security measures at little extra cost to taxpayers. n265 Every conjugal visit program in the United States
conducts searches of the facilities where the visits take place before the families arrive and once again after they leave. n266 In
addition, prisons limit the types of items that families can bring into the prison. n267 They also require visiting family members to
allow guards to search their clothing and any items they have brought with them before the visit begins. n268
In addition to their assertions that conjugal visits make prisons more violent and unsafe, prison officials opposed to its use also argue
that "the unsupervised nature of conjugal visits may actually lead to an increased risk to the physical safety of [the inmate's] family
members." n269 They claim that male inmates who are predisposed to commit family violence are likely to [*607] continue to abuse
their families during the conjugal visits. n270 Therefore, the visits do not promote "healthy family bonding," they only allow prisoners
to continue to participate in unhealthy, dysfunctional family relationships. n271 Conjugal visitation also endangers inmates and their
families by increasing the potential transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. n272 Inmates or their spouses can
unknowingly infect each other, and it is difficult for prison administrators to ensure that the inmates and their wives practice safe sex.
n273
All five states with conjugal visits programs, however, have policies to prevent the occurrence of family violence or the spread of
HIV. n274 In California, maximum security inmates, sex offenders, and other inmates with violent histories are not allowed to
participate in the conjugal visit programs. n275 Other prison systems deny conjugal visit privileges to inmates with severe disciplinary
problems. n276 Prison officials also require inmates who participate in conjugal visits programs to receive HIV testing, and to submit
to other tests for sexually transmitted diseases before joining the program. n277
It seems apparent that "[i]f correctional administrators use standard precautionary measures . . . many concerns associated with
conjugal visitation programs can be alleviated." n278 The use of regular HIV and Sexually Transmitted Disease ("STD") testing can
reduce the spread of these diseases, and the implementation of certain eligibility requirements can prevent the occurrence of abuse
towards family members. Strict security measures and disciplinary policies also reduce the problems associated with allowing families
to have extended, unsupervised visits with inmates. n279




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      132/165


                                     *** CEDAW COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                            133/165


                                                               CEDAW CP 1NC

Counterplan Text: United States federal government should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Patriarchy
Counterplan solves women‘s rights better than the plan – we get international solvency
Oishik Sircar (human rights lawyer and campaigner) 2007: We need to fight patriarchy, not men.
http://southasia.oneworld.net/Article/we-need-to-fight-patriarchy-not-men2019
SB:Women's rights form a totality and no single issue should overshadow any other. At the same time, the reason we are focusing on
sexual violence is to highlight its central importance in a patriarchal society. Issues such as welfare rights, the right to self-
determination, and the right to education are also part of the human rights package. Women activists do discuss these issues often
enough within the movement, but the choice to focus on sexual violence is simply because the victims of violence are by and large
women. At the same time, women are also the first victims of extreme poverty. In addition, they face discrimination in law and in
practice in many countries in the world. With the provision of ‗reservations' in CEDAW – which allows state parties to not hold
themselves accountable on certain grounds – do you think it remains a useful instrument to uphold women's rights? I ask this question
especially in the light of most Southern countries, like India, declining from meeting the standards of uniform personal laws, on the
basis of the ‗reservations' clause. Within the international legal framework, no single law is etched in stone. CEDAW was a set of
agreements designed to provide security and legal rights for women, at the time it was approved. Over time, however, it became clear
that CEDAW needed revisions. CEDAW is fine, but must be revisited to respond to the present needs of women's human rights.
However, the recognition of the fundamental rights in CEDAW is essential to establish a gender-just society. As far as Southern
countries using the ‗reservations' clause more frequently on cultural grounds is concerned – I think that is a flawed assumption – the
US has not ratified CEDAW, and it hasn't even signed its Optional Protocol. There are Southern countries which also do not meet the
human rights standards for women set out in CEDAW – but that is not exclusively a third world phenomenon.

(__) Human Rights
Ratification is critical to human rights leadership --- failure makes the US look hypocritical
Center for Reproductive Rights 4 (―CEDAW: The Importance of U.S. Ratification: CEDAW Advances Women's Human Rights‖, January 1,
http://reproductiverights.org/en/document/cedaw-the-importance-of-us-ratification-cedaw-advances-womens-human-rights)
The U.S. Has Failed To Ratify CEDAW for More than 20 Years
CEDAW was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18, 1979, and became effective in 1981. The U.S.
was instrumental in drafting CEDAW, and President Jimmy Carter signed the convention on behalf of the U.S. in 1980. The
Senate Foriegn Relations committee held hearings in 1994 and 2002 and voted favorably each time to send the treaty to the Senate
floor. Since that time, for various political reasons, the Senate has not voted on this treaty. The U.S. Appears Isolationist As of
May 2003, 173 countries have ratified CEDAW. The U.S. stands out as the only industrialized nation that has failed to do so. In
fact, in refusing to ratify CEDAW, the U.S. is in the company of countries such as North Korea and Iran, where violations of
women‘s human rights are particularly rampant. In 1995, the U.S. made a public commitment at the UN Fourth World Conference
on Women in Beijing, China to ratify CEDAW by the year 2000. The U.S. must live up to that commitment. U.S. Ratification
Would Increase U.S. Credibility and Influence Worldwide The U.S. should be leading the international fight against gender
discrimination; yet, it is one of the few countries that has failed to ratify CEDAW. This failure is an international embarrassment
and an obstacle to effective U.S. foreign policy. Other nations accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy when it seeks to call attention to
human rights violations or to build consensus among governments for improved human rights standards. Furthermore, in refusing
to ratify CEDAW, the U.S. has relinquished the opportunity to influence further development of women‘s human rights. By its
failure, the U.S. cannot nominate an expert to the CEDAW Committee, which monitors compliance with the treaty. If the U.S.
ratified CEDAW it could exercise greater political and moral leadership on human rights in the international community and
would strengthen its position as a champion of international human rights. Ratification Is Consistent with U.S. Policy Ratification
of CEDAW is consistent with both the foreign and domestic policy of the U.S. The U.S. has a track record of ratifying
international human rights treaties. Among those treaties are the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (1988), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1992), the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1994), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (1994). Most recently, the U.S. ratified the International Labor Organization Convention on the
Worst Forms of Child Labor (1999).


                               For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             134/165


                                            SOLVENCY – PATRIARCHY

US ratification of CEDAW is key to critical to break down the patriarchal system – without US support the treaty carries little
weight – and we control the greater internal link – only the counterplan solves globally – that‘s Sircar

And, CEDAW solves gender discrimination – prefer our empirical proof
US Newswire 01. (December 18, lexis)
Where it has been ratified, CEDAW has proved valuable as a tool to fight discrimination. In some nations, women have used
CEDAW to reform nationality laws that gave fathers more influence than mothers over the nationality of children. San Francisco,
which has adopted CEDAW as a municipal ordinance, has used it to equalize the funds allocated to officers working with girls in the
probation system.

Ratifying CEDAW would revolutionize women‘s rights
Janet Benshoof (internationally recognized human rights lawyer who has established landmark legal precedents on women's
reproductive and equality) 2009: Twisted Treaty Shafts U.S. Women.
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009winter/2009winter_5.php
Fortunately, on the international scene, women are moving past this nonsense and securing much stronger gender-equality guarantees.
For example, CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), the international treaty for
women now ratified by 185 countries, broadly defines equality, requires all laws be examined for their impact on women and imposes
affirmative obligations on governments to dismantle systemic gender discrimination.
CEDAWs broad equality mandates were cited by the constitutional court in Colombia as legal support when the court struck down as
invalid the Colombia criminal abortion law in 2006. Today, poor women in Colombia are entitled to paid abortions even in Catholic
hospitals, a far cry from the rights enjoyed by American women.
If CEDAW were fully implemented in the United States it would revolutionize our rights. By requiring strict scrutiny of all laws
that have a differential impact on women, we could invalidate discriminatory abortion restrictions and maternity-related insurance
costs. Under CEDAW, we could also sue the government to address the shameful fact that there is only one woman on the Supreme
Court, no women running the Pentagon and a Congress with only 16 percent women.

Ratifying CEDAW is critical to eliminating the gender norms and reshaping policies that adversely affect women
CSM 03. (―In One US City, Life Under a UN Treaty on Women‖, Christian Science Monitor, January 30, lexis)
In some ways, CEDAW does seem like a document for the third [developing] world. The United States would not need to make any
legal changes to adopt it: The Constitution and various antidiscrimination laws already surpass the standards of the 1979 convention.
But ratifying CEDAW, activists say, would provide a framework for reexamining fundamental issues of public policy - from
hiring practices to building codes - through the lens of their impact on women. San Francisco's experience bears that out. The
primary goal of the CEDAW task force here has been to raise awareness about how every decision can affect women. Its operative
words have been cajole, educate, and prod, not punish. It is not a regulatory board. "We don't go in and say, 'You're doing it all
wrong,' " says Krishanti Dharmaraj, a member of the task force and a national human rights advocate. "What CEDAW does
exquisitely is that it unveils gaps that we thought were normal - where the norm is men." It can be as subtle as the spacing of street
lamps. The Department of Public Works has added more in some areas to make neighborhoods safer to women. Or it can be as
obvious as the Yard. CEDAW pointed out that 98 percent of the skilled craftsmen in the department are men. For engineers, the figure
is 85 percent. In response, Public Works has been open to more flexible schedules for female employees with children, and has
increased job-training courses, says personnel manager Horan. In addition, it has started a women engineers' caucus. The CEDAW
task force has also collected data on the advantages of allowing employees in the Adult Probation Department - including busy moms
- to telecommute. It has encouraged the Rent Board to keep statistics on whom it serves. And in juvenile justice, it brought attention
and support to a plan to hire caseworkers to deal exclusively with girls. "It has been an inspiration and a watchful eye to keep us
moving forward," says Jesse Williams, the city's chief juvenile probation officer. "It's always good to know someone is interested."
San Francisco has been interested since the 1995 UN Conference on Women. Determined to use that momentum, San Francisco's
network of human rights advocates turned to CEDAW. For the city that was a leader of the women's rights movement of the 1970s,
and is the hometown of two of the most powerful women in American politics, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) and House minority leader
Nancy Pelosi, there was little need for debate. The measure passed unanimously. "People here have a better grasp that what is going
on locally and what is going on globally are interconnected," says Patti Chang, president of the Women's Foundation here.
** This evidence has been edited for offensive language.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                               The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                       135/165


                                                       SOLVENCY – PATRIARCHY

CEDAW ratification critical to equality in women‘s rights
Athreya 02. (Bama, deputy director for the Int‘l Labor Rights Fund, ―Toward a new foreign policy‖, Foreign Policy in Focus,
December 10, lexis)
Finally, the U.S. government should ratify and become party to the sole international instrument that does offer any sort of guidance
related to the rights of working women: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW). Fully 170 countries, approximately 90% of the United Nations membership, have ratified this convention,
including even Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. CEDAW is relevant to women's workplace rights insofar as it codifies the obligation of
governments to: (1) eliminate discrimination in education, vocational training, and employment, (2) protect workplace rights to health
and safety, maternity and family leave, and social security, (3) prohibit sexual harassment, and (4) affirmatively guarantee women's
rights to access credit. Signed by President Carter in 1979, CEDAW languishes to this day in Congress, where the Senate has
repeatedly refused even to allow a vote on the convention. During 2002, the Democratic leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee moved to bring CEDAW ratification to the full Senate, but a hostile executive branch lobbied hard against the move. Now
that Republicans are once again in control of the Senate, there is little immediate prospect for progress on CEDAW ratification. If the
rights of working women are to be fully protected globally (including in the U.S.), all branches of the U.S. government need to drop
their opposition to CEDAW and, at long last, let the Senate ratify this convention.

Counterplan solves patriarchy and women‘s rights
Lucinda Marshall (founder of the Feminist Peace Network) 2004: Militarism and Violence Against Women.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/13911
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. It defines
discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or
nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human
rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." CEDAW has frequently been
referred to as a bill of human rights for women. It is important to know that the U.S. does not participate in the International Criminal Court and has not
signed UNSC 1325 or ratified CEDAW. However, both Iraq and Afghanistan have agreed to all three measures and therefore a case can be made that they are
applicable to the situations in those countries. In particular, it should be obvious that violence always violates the human rights of the victims and, therefore, UNSC
1325 and CEDAW are applicable to these conflicts. In addition, the documented pandemic of rapes in both of these countries should certainly be addressed by the ICC.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               136/165


                                   SOLVENCY – REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

CEDAW ratification key to US leadership in reproductive rights
US Newswire 01. (―Groups Push for Women‘s Rights Treaty in Honor of Afghan Women, Human Rights Day‖, December 6, lexis)
December 18 marks the 22nd anniversary of the United Nations' unanimous adoption of CEDAW. This treaty provides a universal
standard for women's human rights. It addresses discrimination in areas such as education, employment, marriage and family relations,
health care and reproductive health, politics, finance and law. To date, 168 countries have ratified CEDAW. The United States is the
only industrialized nation that has failed to do so, and as such is in the company of countries such as Iran and Afghanistan. In the last
several months, the world has seen an even greater struggle for freedom and the promotion of fundamental human rights principles.
We see the protection of women's rights as vital to the success of these efforts. There can be no civil society in Afghanistan
without the full restoration of women's rights. CEDAW is critical to ensuring that the future of Afghanistan will have a democratic
government that includes equal rights for women and protects the human rights and freedoms of all its citizens. As President George
W. Bush proclaimed earlier this year, "repressed people around the world must know this about the United States...we will always be
the world's leader in support of human rights." The United States should demonstrate its commitment to human rights by
ratifying CEDAW, the most comprehensive treaty ensuring the human rights of women -- imperative for half of the world's
population. In 1992, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of communism, the United States ratified the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In doing so, the U.S. held up that treaty as a model for the new
democracies in Eastern Europe and the development of their constitutions. Today, U.S. ratification of CEDAW would not only set
the stage for U.S. leadership in ensuring women's human rights in the rebuilding of a more democratic Central Asia, but would
also reaffirm the U.S. commitment to promoting and protecting equality for its own citizens.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                137/165


                                           SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS

Ratification of CEDAW is critical to a reaffirmation of our commitment to human rights – its already taken us nine years to
ratify the treaty and nearly every other country has signed on – in refusing to ratify CEDAW has given up its authority to
arbitrate on other areas of human rights. This means that the counterplan not only solves better but is a prerequisite to the
plan – that‘s Center for Reproductive Rights

Failure to ratify CEDAW spills over to world credibility in human rights
AAUW 2 (―Advancing equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, and research‖,
http://www.aauw.org/About/international_corner/upload/CEDAWin-the-US.pdf)
U.S. ratification would provide a powerful statement of our continuing commitment to ending discrimination against women
worldwide. It would not require any changes in current U.S. law. As one of the few nations that have failed to ratify CEDAW, the
U.S. compromises its credibility as a world leader for human rights. The U.S. made ratification by 2000 one of its public
commitments at the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995. The U.S. must keep that commitment. U.S. failure
to ratify the treaty allows other countries to distract attention from their neglect of women and undermines the powerful principle
that human rights for women are universal across all cultures and religions. Until the United States ratifies, our country cannot
credibly demand that others live up to their obligations under this treaty. Our failure to ratify puts us in the company of Sudan, Iran
and Somalia; every industrialized country has ratified the treaty.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               138/165


                                              SOLVENCY – TERRORISM

US participation in CEDAW is key to the War on Terror – strengthens Muslim moderates and shores up international
support for the US.
Mahalingam 04. (Ravi, attorney in California and current Editor-in-Chief of the California International Practitioner, California
Western International Law Journal, Spring, lexis)
More importantly, although CEDAW is clearly at odds with militant Islamic fundamentalism, it is not incompatible with more
conventional interpretations of the Shar'ia. 201 CEDAW is even more compatible with progressive Islamic movements that are less
orthodox in their interpretation and implementation of Islamic law and seek to achieve some balance between [*205] modernization
and respect for local culture. With thoughtful political leadership, CEDAW can be presented to Muslims in a way that does not
fundamentally threaten mainstream notions of Islamic values - which themselves are the subject of rigorous debate within the Islamic
world - but rather addresses the excesses of militant Islamic fundamentalism. The cautious steps by Muslim countries at compliance
with CEDAW, as evidenced by modest local reform efforts, a steadily increasing number of ratifications and the absence of additional
or expanded reservations, underscore this possibility. Seen in this light, CEDAW could be used as a tool to empower modernizers in
the Islamic world to advocate and achieve progressive reform in a manner consistent with local values and culture. Every act of
reform in the Arab and Muslim world, along the lines prescribed in CEDAW, correspondingly weakens the impact of militant
Islamic fundamentalism because the principles of equality and nondiscrimination embodied in the Treaty are diametrically opposed
to the fundamentalist agenda. When women are sufficiently empowered, their collective voice will further dilute the political power of
militant Islamic fundamentalists because women will be an important constituency for leaders to court in order to secure political
legitimacy. Furthermore, U.S. advocacy of CEDAW in the Arab and Muslim world on matters ranging from political freedom to
preventing violence against women can be useful in tilting the political balance of power away from fundamentalists. If the U.S. put
its weight behind CEDAW, political leaders in the Arab and Muslim world that desire peaceful and productive relations with the West
would be more inclined towards reform and marginalization of the fundamentalists. This would represent an important change in the
political dynamic that has existed in the Muslim world since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, where
fundamentalism has steadily gained political support. 202 Critiquing the fundamentalist social agenda from within is important, if not
necessary, to effectively overcome the global security threat that has emerged and grown in earnest since the 1970s. Finally, the U.S.
should incorporate CEDAW into its foreign policy because collective action is widely recognized by U.S. policymakers as
indispensable to an effective strategy against the threat posed by militant Islamic fundamentalist groups, 203 which have a
decentralized and international base of operations. CEDAW can help the U.S. maintain its "anti-terror" coalition around a
common goal of protecting and promoting women's rights. One recognized advantage of treaties - and why their use has been an
enduring feature of international relations over many years - is that they lower transaction costs for States to engage in collective
action because such instruments offer a transparency of purpose that lends greater legitimacy to the [*206] underlying effort. 204
States and their populations are less likely to suspect ulterior motives when aims are pursued through an open, collectively endorsed
framework. 205 However, the continued advocacy of women's rights in the Arab and Muslim world is incongruous with the U.S. failure
to ratify CEDAW. Many advocates of ratification in the U.S. have made this argument, often with direct reference to the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan. 206 In the absence of ratification, the U.S. advocacy of women's rights remains an ad-hoc policy subject to the
vicissitudes of political considerations and priorities. Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge CEDAW's authority limits the ability of
the U.S. to persuade other countries to pursue reforms. As Senator Joseph Biden, an advocate of ratification, stated: For the United
States, the Treaty can be a powerful tool to support women around the world who fight for equal rights. Our voice on women's rights
will be enhanced by becoming a party to this treaty, because we will be empowered to call nations to account for their compliance
with the Treaty. Absent our membership, we cannot do that. 207 Ratification would make CEDAW a permanent part of U.S. law and
would transform women's rights from the realm of politics to official government policy. This would not only bind future U.S.
administrations, but also condition the expectations of other States that deal with the U.S. States would be forced to recognize that the
issue of women's rights is non-negotiable as a matter of U.S. law, and would have to factor this into the cost/benefit analysis decision
making. States may not be able to wholly disregard women's rights if they know that doing so would run afoul of the U.S.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                   The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                           139/165


                                                  AT: CEDAW FAILS

Your ev is an indict of the status quo – US ratification would strengthen CEDAW effectiveness and cause others to recommit
to women‘s rights **
Schneider 04. (Elizabeth M., Prof @ Brooklyn Law School, ―Anna Hirsch Lecture‖, New England Law Review, 38 New Eng.L. Rev.
689, lexis)
 [*717] The second reason given in support of ratification of CEDAW is that without United States support, the treaty lacks full
force and effect, and will not be taken seriously around the globe. This argument is made in The Working Group report: "Women
around the world need the United States to speak loudly and clearly in support of CEDAW so that it becomes a stronger instrument
in support of their struggles. Without U.S. ratification, some other governments feel free to ignore CEDAW's mandate and their
obligations under it." 178 In a statement to the United States Foreign Relations Committee, Amnesty International USA emphasized
the need for U.S. leadership in this area:
By ratifying, the United States will be in a position to contribute to the development of the standards and procedures for effective
implementation of this treaty around the world. It also would enable the United States to utilize the internationally agreed upon
standards in CEDAW to urge other governments to end violence and discriminatory practices that deny women fundamental human
rights. With U.S. support, the treaty can become a stronger instrument for the millions of women around the world who
desperately need international protection. Women around the world look to the United States for leadership; until the U.S. ratifies,
many governments will take their commitments less seriously. 179
 The Women's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch cautions that the United States cannot legitimately criticize practices in
other nations without having ratified CEDAW: "Having not ratified CEDAW, United States intervention in support of women's
rights may be construed as "cultural imperialism' or an "American' agenda, as opposed to a rights-based approach." 180 The Feminist
Majority has focused on women in Afghanistan in its campaign for ratification, and argues that United States ratification of CEDAW
is a necessary corollary to any intervention in this country. 181




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             140/165


                                     AT: CEDAW  WOMEN IN COMBAT

1. Your link is a conservative lie
NCWO 03. (National Council of Womens Organizations, http://www.womensorganizations.org/pages.cfm?ID=57)
Fiction: The Treaty will require the United States and other countries to send women into armed ground combat.
Fact: The Treaty does not require countries to send women into combat. In fact, there is no reference in the Treaty to women in the
military or women in combat. In addition, the 1997 CEDAW Committee report urging "full participation of women in the military" is
not a requirement but an observation that women's absence in military decision-making councils hampers diplomacy, negotiations, and
peacekeeping and peace-making efforts and neglects to take note of the effect upon women and families of military decisions in times
of conflict.

2. Ending combat exclusion key to solve heg
Jake Willens, Women in the Military, CDI Paper, 1996. http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html
More than 40.000 American women served in the war against Iraq. The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat
Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point
for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-
combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war.
Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of
military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best
person in each job, regardless of their gender.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                     The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                             141/165


                                              AT: FEDERALISM TURNS

CEDAW doesn‘t violate federalism: reservations will prevent this:
Susan Roosevelt Weld, 12/18/2001 (U.S. Newswire, 12/18/2001; Lexis)
CEDAW opponents have expressed fears about the possible impact of the treaty on the United States:
-- Some say that CEDAW would be an encroachment on our national sovereignty. James Hirsen, in a book entitled The Coming
Collision: Global Law vs. U.S. Liberties (1999) claims that CEDAW would allow "the UN to invade the most personal of
relationships between men and women". However, the reservations developed in the past by our State Department would ensure
that the treaty will not impinge on states' rights under the Constitution.


CEDAW is 100% consistent with the US constitution:
NOY THRUPKAEW, 9/23/2002 (American Prospect; Lexis)
CEDAW opponents are working overtime against the treaty, alleging that it infringes on national sovereignty, advocates legalizing
prostitution, and promotes abortion and what Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, calls the "homosexual
agenda." But the treaty makes no mention of abortion, homosexuality or legalizing prostitution, and a potential member country
can attach conditions to protect its laws before ratifying the treaty. As it stands now, the document is "entirely consistent" with
the U.S. Constitution and federal and state laws, Harold Koh, former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and
labor during the Clinton administration, told the Senate.


CEDAW doesn‘t violate national sovereignty:
  ELLEN CHESLER, 2004 (senior fellow at the Open Society Institute, The American Prospect, OCTOBER; Lexis)
  Like all international covenants, the treaty respects national sovereignty and does not impose absolute legal obligations.
  CEDAW is not "self-executing"; it requires that domestic laws be passed to implement its provisions. It also provides for the
  granting of "reservations, understandings and declarations," if necessary, to accommodate local variations from its standards.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               142/165


                                                 POLITICS – POPULAR

Congress will support ratifying CEDAW
Pollack, 2009
(Margaret, Deputy Assistant to Secretart of State of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, March 31, ―Statement by
Margaret J. Pollack,‖ Federal News Service, pg online @ nexis..ag)
With respect to human rights, the U.S. Department of State recently announced that the U.S. has joined 66 other UN member
states in supporting the statement on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity" read out in the plenary meeting of
the General Assembly on December 18, 2008. This signals our collective support of the statement's main objective - the
condemnation of human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, just as we condemn any other failure to
protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Obama Administration has further signaled its re-engagement on the
domestic front by creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. This new office will provide leadership and initiative
on a broad range of issues, including women's and girls' health, empowerment and human rights, helping to ensure that we fulfill
our promise to address the persistent challenges that have been too long ignored. One priority for this Administration is
ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In doing so, we will establish an
inter-agency process to review the language and consult with the legislative branch of the U.S. Government which will
ultimately need to ratify the Convention.

Liberal legislatives are going to push Obama to ratify CEDAW
Associated Press, 2008
(November 7, ―Legislative priorities of some liberal groups,‖ The Associated Press, pg online @ nexis//ag)
Liberal advocacy groups, often thwarted in Congress for the past 14 years, have a long list of legislative priorities they will push
for when Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats take full power in Washington. Among them: Criminal-justice reform
groups:      Eliminate sentencing disparity that is harsher on crack cocaine than powder cocaine.           Expand alternatives to
incarceration. Extend federal voting rights to people released from prison. Restore welfare and food stamp eligibility to
people with drug felony convictions. Gay-rights groups: Outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity.     Expand hate-crimes laws to cover violence motivated by any-gay bias.            Modify immigration laws to
accommodate same-sex partners from other nations. Repeal "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars gays from serving openly in
the military. Feminist groups: Close the gender wage gap and increase the minimum wage. Enable more workers to benefit
from paid sick days and family/medical leave.          Ratify CEDAW, the United Nations treaty to end sex discrimination.
Reproductive-rights groups: Expand access to birth control and family planning. Eliminate federal support for abstinence-
only sex education and support comprehensive programs that include teaching about contraception. Reverse so-called "Global
Gag Rule" that bars aid to groups providing or promoting abortions. Limit or overturn policies that interfere with a woman's
right to have an abortion. Immigrant-rights groups: Halt or cut back on workplace raids targeting illegal-immigrant workers.
Enact comprehensive immigration reform that provides illegal immigrants with options other than deportation.

Despite past failure, Congress finally supports ratification of CEDAW
Ruse, 2009
(Austin, President of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, April 27, ―This Is No Time to Go Wobbly,‖ The Weekly
Standard, pg online @ nexis//ag)
It appears that the Obama administration and Senate Democrats want the United States to sit in the dock before this same
committee, as must every country that ratifies the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW, pronounced See-Daw). The CEDAW treaty has bounced around the Senate for 29 years, ever since President
Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980. It has twice been voted favorably out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but has never
received the necessary concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present, no matter which party has been in power. Now,
however, with staunch backers like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in key positions in the executive and legislative branches,
CEDAW's moment may finally have come.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            143/165


                                              POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

It is proven that congress does not want to ratify UN treaties, critics fear Obama pushing CEDAW to Congress
TendersInfo, 2008 (November 10, ―Obama to Expand UN Ties,‖ TendersInfo, pg online @ nexis//ag)
Obama has spoken out against US refusal to fund the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), a United Nations (UN) agency that
promotes population control, fertility reduction, and abortion all over the world. UNFPA helped the Chinese government set up
and run its one-child policy, which has resulted in upwards of 100 million abortions many of them forced or coerced. A US law
called Kemp-Kasten mandates that US money cannot support groups that cooperate in coerced abortions. The US State
Department has repeatedly determined that UNFPA is complicit in the coercive policies of the China government and has
therefore refused funding for the past eight years. Congress has for many years voted to resume UNFPA funding and has been
overruled by President Bush. It is expected that Obama will resume funding. There is the question of UN treaties that the US
has refused to ratify. These treaties include the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the
Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Kyoto Treaty on the Environment, the International Criminal Court and the
Landmines Treaty. While various US presidents have signed some of these treaties, the Senate under both Democratic and
Republican rule has ratified none of them. It is unclear that the left has enough votes in the Senate to meet the necessary two-
thirds needed for ratification. Still critics fear that an Obama administration will try to move the Senate toward ratification.
Obama s UN and European allies will certainly pressure Obama to do so.

CEDAW raises divisions between liberals and conservatives
Cohn, 2008 (Marjorie, President of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in criminal law
and proceduce, and international human rights law, December 5, ―Obama: Ratify the Women‘s Convention Soon,‖ Marjorie Cohn, pg
online @ http://marjoriecohn.com/2008/12/obama-ratify-womens-convention-soon.html//ag)
Nearly 30 years after President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW), the United States remains the only democracy that refuses to ratify the most significant treaty guaranteeing
gender equality. One hundred eighty-five countries, including over 90 percent of members of the United Nations, have ratified
CEDAW. U.S. opposition to ratification has been informed not simply by an objective analysis of how CEDAW‘s provisions
might conflict with U.S. constitutional law. Rather, it reflects the ideological agenda and considerable clout of the religious right
and the corporate establishment. Issues of gender equality raise some of the most profound divisions between liberals and
conservatives. The right-wing agenda was born again in the Bush administration, which issued numerous directives limiting
equality between the sexes. Bush targeted funding for family planning and packed the courts and his administration with anti-
choice ideologues.

CEDAW has generated fierce debate in congress
Blanchfield, 2008 (Luisa, Analyst in International Relations, foreign affairs, defense, and trade division, October 28, ―The
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Congressional Issues,‖ Congressional
Research Service, pg online @ fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/112471.pdf//ag)
President Jimmy Carter submitted the Convention to the Senate in 1980. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held
hearingson the Convention in 1988, 1990, 1994, and 2002, but the treaty was never considered for ratification by the full
Senate. The George W. Bush Administration began conducting a full legal and policy review of the Convention in 2002. On
February 7, 2007, the Administration transmitted aletter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that it does not
support Senate action on the treaty at this time. U.S. ratification of CEDAW is a contentious policy issue that has generated
considerable debate in Congress and among the general public. Supporters of U.S. ratification contend that the Convention is a
valuable mechanism for fighting women‘s discrimination worldwide. They argue that U.S. ratification of the treaty will give the
Convention additional legitimacy, and that it will further empower women who fight discrimination in other countries.

Conservatives oppose CEDAW
Lawrence, 2009 (Jill, colunist, former national political correspondent for USA Today, politics writer for The Associated Press, The
Boston Globe, The Atlanta Constitution, masters degree in journalism, July 17, ―Obama Ramps Up Health Care Stakes After Roller
Coaster Week,‖ Politics Daily, pg online @ http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/08/obamas-mission-reviving-stalled-treaties///ag)
But other international pacts fall squarely into the culture-war terrain of U.S. politics. Even those with broad support are bound
to trigger intense resistance. For instance, gun rights groups consider the CIFTA treaty aimed at illicit gun trafficking to be a
threat to legal gun owners. Conservatives say the Law of the Sea treaty would undermine U.S. sovereignty and military
operations. And while foreign policy experts say it's absurd and embarrassing that the United States hasn't ratified the treaty
banning discrimination against women, some conservatives say it's an attack on the family and on U.S. sovereignty.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      144/165


                            *** GLOBAL POVERTY COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                      145/165


                                                                            GLOBAL POVERTY CP 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should spend 150 billion dollars each year until the year 2019 on
poverty-fighting efforts that focus on technological defenses against droughts, diseases, mountainous trade barriers, and bad
soil. Funding should be distributed through local governments.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Global Poverty
The counterplan solves poverty worldwide – even if we don‘t solve U.S. poverty, we access their impacts better
Eviatar 5 (Daphne, contributing editor at the American Lawyer and a 2005 fellow with the Alicia Patterson Foundation. ―Paying the Pauper‖, Science and Spirit,
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=517)
Sachs argues that if all countries doubled their foreign aid contributions, spending 150 billion dollars every year between now and
2015, we could halve world poverty and be well on our way to its complete elimination. Sachs believes the developed world needs
to spend more money on getting poor countries the technologies they need to overcome geographical barriers—such as frequent
droughts, deadly diseases, mountains that operate as barriers to trade, or just bad soil—and that such items, paid for by the wealthy
world, will jump-start the poorest nations into more rapid growth and industrialization. But many experts aren‘t convinced that foreign aid alone can solve the
problem of global poverty. ―We do need to spend a lot more money,‖ says Michael Kremer, a development economist at Harvard University. ―But we also need to take a closer look at how to spend it effectively.‖
William Easterly, a former World Bank economist who now teaches at New York University, says Sachs ―underrates the institutional difficulty of implementing the programs that he‘s pushing. He doesn‘t get it that a
lot of the money gets stolen, or disappears into patronage-swollen bureaucracies that are not now able to deliver even the cheap things like vaccinations or getting oral rehydration therapies to mothers whose children die
                                                                                                                                                                       the rich world has never
from diarrhea. His answer is that rich countries should give more money. But there‘s a lot of money given. And it hasn‘t solved the problem.‖ Sachs insists, however, that
given enough. ―It‘s like giving half a dose of medicine to a dying patient,‖ he says. Only a ―big push‖ of foreign aid, particularly in
Africa, will do. Still, many experts remain skeptical. ―Aid can make a difference, but I really don‘t think of [the lack of] it as a significant obstacle to economic development in low-income environments,‖
says Dani Rodrik, a professor of political economy at Harvard University‘s Kennedy School of Government. ―The real constraint is the lack of incentives to invest in these economies.‖ Inevitably, that argument leads
back to complaints about poor countries‘ governments, which can make people like Sachs and Bono uncomfortable. Much of development thinking today focuses on the need for ―good governance‖—generally code for
democratic governments whose officials follow a clear rule of law; employ economic policies that protect property rights and encourage investment; don‘t steal from public coffers; and invest in certain minimum
necessities like functioning roads, clean water, decent schools, and basic health care. In many parts of sub- Saharan Africa, a poor region that‘s only gotten poorer in recent decades, many of these prerequisites are
lacking. And there‘s a huge debate over whether and how foreign aid can help. The enormity of the challenge became clear to me when I traveled in Ethiopia a year ago. In the barren, dusty mountains of the northern
province of Tigray, the government is receiving assistance from the United Nations for a vast irrigation project that involves the digging of wells and terraces in the dry hills to hold the region‘s scarce rainwater. The
hope is that conserving water will protect the population from the devastating effects of Ethiopia‘s annual droughts. It‘s a bold effort that involved the construction of 70,000 ponds and tanks in just one year. But a
review of the project last year revealed that many of those tanks were built so quickly and designed so poorly that they don‘t hold water. Worse, this depressed region lacks enough skilled workers, not to mention
materials, to fix the tanks. These sorts of large government projects are important, but they overlook some of the institutional obstacles to economic growth, many experts say. A communist country from 1974 to 1991,
Ethiopia still forbids private land ownership, and as a result, many Ethiopians don‘t work to improve the land they harvest because they never know when the government might decide to take it away. This results in a
failure to use some of the most basic irrigation techniques that have allowed farmers under similar geographic conditions in other countries to prosper. ―The fear of losing the land is a major reason why this problem has
persisted,‖ says Dessalegn Rahmato, director of the Forum for Social Studies in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. When Sachs was in Ethiopia a year ago, he emphasized the importance of getting billions more
dollars of foreign aid to help the country meet the Millennium Development Goals. But that would take an investment of more than 5 billion dollars a year, says Ishac Diwan, the World Bank‘s country director in
Ethiopia. Even if the bank could give that, it‘s unlikely that Ethiopia‘s government, which has a strong sense of national pride and historically has been intent on doing things its own way, would accept it. ―Ethiopia‘s
entire budget right now is about 6 billion dollars,‖ says Diwan. ―If close to fifty percent of the budget comes from foreign aid, what happens to national
sovereignty?‖ Still, Ethiopia has real problems it hasn‘t managed
to solve on its own. Indeed, hunger has only worsened in recent years. The number of people dependent on food aid in Ethiopia grew from 8 million in 1985 to 13 million during a drought last year. (The population also
has exploded.) In response, the government last year decided to move more than 2 million peasants crowded in the highlands to less populated, more fertile terrain. But when they arrived at the government-chosen
                                                                                                   This doesn‘t mean Ethiopia should
destination, the promises of land, food, water, health care, and other provisions went unfulfilled, and thousands suffered from severe malnutrition and disease.
be denied foreign aid; it simply suggests the aid needs to be carefully targeted. Projects run by international organizations like
Catholic Relief Services, funded in large part by the U.S. government, are bringing critical services to rural villages . In Wonji, just a few
hours southeast of Addis Ababa, Catholic Relief Services helped a village build a water system that brings clean water from the nearest town to a bank of modern faucets in the village center. When I visited, women
                                                                                            Those who previously survived on water from a nearby pond they
were easily filling their brown clay water jugs there instead of making the two-hour trek to the nearest river.
shared with their cattle now were spared the diseases that had forced them to walk miles to the nearest clinic, which usually lacked
the medicine to help them. But even in providing water to three villages, the project helps only about 5,000 people—and it took six months just to get the government to sign the document that allowed
its creation. The project may be successful in that it helps alleviate some of the pain, but it‘s not solving the deeper problems. Despite all the aid Ethiopia has received so far, the government has not yet found a
sustainable way to conserve and clean water, irrigate the land, and otherwise respond to the recurring droughts that regularly devastate the country and its growing population. As Almaz Tafara, a weary-looking, thirty-
                                                                                                           Most experts now believe that to be effective, foreign
five-year-old mother of seven put it, while screwing shut a shiny new water tap: ―If the rains don‘t come soon, we are lost.‖
aid must be combined with locally developed plans that will encourage each country—indeed, each city, town, and village—to
determine for itself what will make it grow. Providing external funding, expertise, and guidance can be crucial, but it‘s not enough.
Even Sachs acknowledges the point. ―There are two issues,‖ he told me in Ethiopia. ―Is money a sufficient condition? No. Is money a necessary condition? Yes.‖
Increasingly, economic thinking is shifting away from the old ―Washington consensus‖— the cookie-cutter reform plans, so popular in the 1990s, that emphasized free trade, open markets, deregulation, and
                                                               Harvard economists Rodrik and Ricardo Hausmann, for example, are
privatization—and toward helping poor countries develop their own particular home-grown solutions.
promoting what they call ―economic self-discovery,‖ the focus of a World Bank conference in April. ―You need to organize a
society so the whole society is looking for investment opportunities,‖ says Hausmann. ―You need to eliminate the obstacles that
make a society make too little effort finding out what they‘re good at.‖ Hausmann, Rodrik, and their colleague Andrés Velasco are developing diagnostic tools to help
countries figure out just that, and will be working with the World Bank to advise countries on how to apply them. In the end, every country will have to solve its own problems, be they poor governance, lack of industry,
                          The wealthy developed nations can and should play an important role —first by eliminating their own trade barriers that make it
geographic obstacles, or chronic conflict.
                                                                     by sharing technology, promoting democracy, and assisting carefully
impossible for poor nations in Africa, for example, to sell textiles to the United States; and second ,
created and locally viable development plans. The pleas of Sharon Stone and Bono at the World Economic Forum can go a long way toward getting the problem of poverty onto the style
pages, but they do little to illuminate the complexity of the problem. It‘s great that more people think it would be cool to end world poverty. The challenge now is to figure out how.




                                              For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 146/165


                                        SOLVENCY – GLOBAL POVERTY

Counterplan solves poverty better – two reasons
   1. Persons living in poverty in the US are not nearly as poor as people in poverty on other continents such as Africa – the
       authors of their impacts all cite poverty as a problem that needs to be solved globally, so why not start with the people
       most in poverty
   2. Counterplan solves poverty globally, which not only solves better but solves more people – spending 150 billion dollars
       every year for ten years we can virtually eradicate global poverty if not significantly reduce it – that‘s Eviatar.

Increasing technological support is critical to a sustainable solution to global poverty
US News 8 (―Jeffrey Sachs on Beating Global Poverty‖, April,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/04/11/jeffery-sachs-on-beating-global-poverty.html)
Economist Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University's current rock star-cum-academic, has mastered the art of being audacious in a
pleasantly reasoned sort of way. In his new book, Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, he posits that global
poverty, plus a host of other ills, can be conquered for a cost that amounts to pocket change for rich-world nations. The price tag,
either shamefully low or totally unrealistic, prompts the question, "If we can, why haven't we?" Excerpts of a chat with Sachs:
How do you pull a country out of poverty?
The trick is to think technologically. People are poor because they lack productivity.
They lack productivity because they don't have the tools to become more productive. Those tools include the basic inputs to raise
farm yields above subsistence levels. For urban centers, it means broadband, electricity, and working ports. My concern is for the
places that need the tools and simply can't pay for them. They're trapped. Those places are where we should give targeted help.
How much would that really cost?
For less than 1 percent of annual income of the high-income countries—the U.S., Europe,
Japan, and a few others—we could end poverty once and for all. It's enough to get the poorest countries onto a path of long-term
development. By ridding the world of extreme poverty, we're doing ourselves a big favor in terms of our own long-term security.
Of course, it goes without saying that most of us consider helping other people a good goal in and of itself if the price is right. And
in this case, the price is right.
Why not just leave it to the free market?
Free-market forces are vital. But they are limited when you have people so poor that they
are essentially isolated from markets. People that don't even grow enough food to bring to market, don't have electricity or access
to roads, clinics, or schools, find themselves isolated from the world economy.
With First World economies struggling, will it be tougher to gain commitments to fight poverty?
Not really, because the amounts
we're talking about are so small. To control malaria comprehensively in Africa, for example, would cost less than two days of
Pentagon spending.
So how should we revamp U.S. policy?
Look at the swath of instability right now that stretches across Chad, Sudan, Somalia, up
through the Arabian Peninsula to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That whole region is enmeshed in a real crisis of massive
water scarcity, food scarcity, and population stress. If we take the initiative, we'd find that for a few billion dollars there'd be an
incredible rally around us, as opposed to the hundreds of billions of dollars that just aren't getting us anywhere right now.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                              147/165


                                                   SOLVENCY – GLOBAL POVERTY

The CP‘s empirically successful --- creates a self-sustainable solution to poverty
Mother Jones 5 (―The End of Poverty: An Interview with Jeffrey Sachs‖, May, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/end-
poverty-interview-jeffrey-sachs)
In order to figure out how to reach these goals, Annan organized a panel of over 250 development experts to lay out practical strategies for promoting rapid
                                                                                                                                              aid
development. Headed by economist Jeffrey Sachs, the panel published their final report in January of 2005. The report calls for both an increase in
from Western countries and a reallocation of funding priorities in the developing countries themselves. The report also calls for
more aid to be given on a local level. By bypassing governments, the UN hopes to spark more immediate and effective
development. For instance, in one test case conducted in Kenya, UN funding went straight to the village of Sauri, where the
schools were able to provide much-needed food for their students, and hence jumped in ranking from 68th to 7th in the district. Shortly after the
release of the UN report came the publication of Sachs' book, The End of Poverty, in which he laid out his own strategies for eradicating poverty by 2025. Sachs,
who gained renown for advising Latin American and Asian governments on economic reform, has gained popularity as "can-do" economist amidst a cacophony of
naysayers on development. But his optimistic attitude has also attracted quite a bit of skepticism. Why is it that decades of development economics haven't
achieved the elimination of poverty? What makes Sachs' proposals so special? Is eradicating poverty a feasible goal to achieve in our lifetime? Sachs recently sat
down with Mother Jones to discuss these issues. Mother Jones: What makes your plan to end poverty so different from the development efforts that were tried in
the 1950s and 60s? Why hasn't five decades worth of development work been very successful thus far? Jeffrey Sachs: I think so far there's been a lack of
appropriate effort, which includes many things. For development to work, rich countries need to help poor countries make certain practical
investments that are often really very basic. Once you get your head around development issues and realize how solvable many of them are, there are
tremendous things that can be done. But for decades we just haven't tried to do many of these basic things. For instance, one issue that has been tragically neglected
for decades now is malaria. That's a disease that kills up to 3 million people every year. It's a disease that could be controlled quite dramatically and easily if we just
put in the effort. It's truly hard for me to understand why we aren't. MJ: What do you say to critics who argue that it's a waste to put more money into a
development system that hasn't used that money very effectively thus far? JS: Well, we have to be smart about whatever we're doing. But I'm quite convinced that,
broadly speaking, economic development works. The main arguments of the Millennium Project Report, and the main argument of my book is that there are
certain places on the planet that, because of various circumstances—geographical isolation, burden of disease, climate, or soil—
these countries just can't quite get started. So it's a matter of helping them get started, whether to grow more food or to fight
malaria or to handle recurring droughts. Then, once they're on the first rung of the ladder of development, they'll start climbing just
like the rest of the world. MJ: So do you believe that past efforts, to get these less-developed countries on the "first rung," haven't been pragmatic enough?
JS: Part of it is that many of these countries are invisible places, neglected by us politically, neglected by our business firms, by international markets, and by trade.
We tend to focus on these countries only when they're in such extraordinary crises that they get shown on CNN because they're in a deep drought or a massive war,
which is something that impoverished countries are much more prone to falling to. There haven't been too many stories in our press about Senegal, Ghana,
Tanzania, Malawi, or Ethiopia, other than when the disasters hit. And yet these are places that are in very deep trouble all of the time, but with largely solvable
problems. And those are the kinds of the places that I'm talking about as being stuck in extreme poverty. MJ: If there's been no real effort to draw the world's
attention to those places, is there any hope that funding will go there? JS: The world got side-tracked from development issues during the post-9/11 crisis period.
During the war in Iraq there were bitter divisions in the world community, and the idea of being able to focus on the problems of extreme poverty or malaria or
drought and chronic hunger in Africa were just not at the top of the world's debate. But I think the tsunami in the Indian Ocean last December, in which we could
all see the scope of the devastation on our television screens, shifted discussion towards the plight of the world's poor. So now there are some positive signs. Tony
Blair has pushed for an Africa Commission which just produced a report in March that focuses on poorest of the poor in Africa. There will be a UN poverty summit
this September which is predicted to be the largest gathering of world leaders in history. And I'm traveling extensively around the world talking about these issues.
So I think that even in our country, there is a growing discussion. MJ: I know that former World Bank employee and economist William Easterly has criticized
your proposals and called for what he terms a "piecemeal reform" approach in which development efforts are carried out one step at a time, with subsequent
evaluation. What is your response to this? JS: Basically, I don't think that we should be choosing between whether a young girl has immunizations or water, or
between whether her mother and father are alive, because they have access of treatment for AIDS, or whether she has a meal at school, or whether her father and
mother, who are farmers, are able to grow enough food to feed their family and earn some income. Those all strike me as quite doable and practical things that can
be done at once. I make the analogy that farmers, to grow their food, need good soil, sunshine, proper rain, and heat. If you don't one of those, even if you have the
other three, your crop is still not going to grow. A lot of life in a poor village is like that. If you have a clinic but you don't have safe drinking water, or if you have
safe drinking water and a clinic, but you don't have bed nets to fight malaria, you just don't get the kind of needs met and the basic quality of life that gives you a
chance. I think that Bill Easterly misunderstands what I propose. I'm not proposing a single global plan dictated by some UN central command. Quite the opposite,
I'm proposing that we help people help themselves. This can be done without legions of people rushing over to these countries to
build houses and schools. This is what people in their own communities can do if we give them the resources to do it. MJ: Part of
Easterly's argument is that if you implement different strategies all at once, it will be difficult to isolate and understand which strategies worked effectively, and
which did not. Do you share this concern? JS: I have been working with over 250 of my colleagues on the Millennium Development Report. Everybody here is an
expert on a different thing. The soil scientists really know a lot about how to improve soil nutrients and the doctors really know a lot about how to keep children
alive. The malariologists really know how to control malaria and the hydrologists really know how to get safe drinking water in a community. One doesn't have
to test whether it's good to have more food production, or malaria bed nets or doctors or teachers. These are proven technologies. If
we were introducing something new, that would be different, but ours is not an approach based on new discoveries, this is an
approach based on the best of proven technologies.




                                   For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              148/165


                                                    AT: CORRUPTION

Working with local governments solves corruption
Mother Jones 5 (―The End of Poverty: An Interview with Jeffrey Sachs‖, May, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/end-
poverty-interview-jeffrey-sachs)
JS: My experience is that there's corruption everywhere: in the U.S., in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. It's a bit like infectious
disease—you can control it, but it's very hard to eradicate it. And yes, there are some cases where the corruption is so massive that
unless you are really, really clever and come up with some radically new approach to the issue, you're going to have a hard time
accomplishing many development goals. It's quite hard in a place like Zimbabwe, now, where the current government, in a quite
despicable way, clings to power. Or, in a country where there is absolutely no transparency or where you have a family ruling
violently to stay in power. It's very hard to do a lot of the things that really need to be done to build an effective school system, a
health system, and so on. I don't have any magic solution for those situations.
But, let me note that the world successfully eradicated small pox, and not just in countries that scored high on a governance index but
in all parts of the world. This was an international effort which targeted a specific outcome undertaken by professionals using a proven
technology and a very extensive monitoring system. And that's the general model for our aid proposals. Nothing is done on trust.
Everything should be done on a basis of measurement and monitoring. When you really focus, there are so many ways to be clever
about how to do this to make it work better. Don't just send money; send bed nets, send in auditors, make targets quantitative. There
are a lot of tricks, a lot of ways, that if one is practical about this, one can get results.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 149/165


                                                      AT: US POVERTY

Standards for poverty are relatively high in the United States --- people are able to sustain basic needs
Rector 7 (Robert, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, ―How Poor Are America's Poor?
Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America‖, August 27, http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg2064.cfm)
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United
States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the
preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer-icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from
11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the
individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide
a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million per-sons classified as
"poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and
severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few
generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house-holds equal those of the
median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov-ernment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actu-ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor
by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over-crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other
cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump-tion of protein, vitamins, and
minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor
children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above
recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour-ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10
pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition
is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do
not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig-erator, a stove, a clothes washer
and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is
able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had
suf-ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from
the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      150/165


                              *** MINE THE MOON COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                                                                             The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                                                                                     151/165

                                                                                  MINE THE MOON 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should mine the moon for Helium 3.

Contention 1 is Competition: the Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Space
Here‘s our solvency advocate.
Lasker 06—Writer in the Christian Science Monitor
[John, 12/15, Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel, http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=2]
NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest
beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry. Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the
moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -- futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades
away from commercial deployment. Helium-3 is considered a safe, environmentally friendly fuel candidate for these generators, and
while it is scarce on Earth it is plentiful on the moon. As a result, scientists have begun to consider the practicality of mining lunar
Helium-3 as a replacement for fossil fuels. "After four-and-half-billion years, there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion
Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's influential NASA Advisory Council, its
preeminent civilian leadership arm. The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3. Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a
NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through the Taurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico). The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for
Space Exploration," which targets Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong. Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are
known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters. At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced small-scale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one
milliwatt of power on a continuous basis. While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered
by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away. The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and
that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year. NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the
                                                                             Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely
European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020.
in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will
provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese
newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."

Mining would revolutionize the world and spur space explaration
Bright 07—editor of eastfeild
[James, 9/26, Helium 3 could revolutionalize the world,
http://media.www.eastfieldnews.com/media/storage/paper1070/news/2007/09/26/OnCampus/Mining.The.Moon-2994100.shtml]
Imagine a world that is not dependent on petroleum and fossil fuels, a world which has taken a giant leap forward towards space
colonization. Although this may seem like an impossibility, this utopia is getting closer to becoming a reality and I welcome it with
open arms. Currently The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space Colonization Technical Committee is developing
plans to have a moon base established as early as 2015 according to a position statement on www.aiaa.org. Aside from the obvious
interest of lunar colonization, a rare type of Helium called Helium 3 could be mined from the surface of the moon and then transferred
by shuttlecraft to Earth. H3 is what powers our Sun. Particles of the element are pushed off from the sun and then bombarded by
cosmic rays which knock neutrons out of the Helium particles. The particles then combine, forming H3. The benefits of H3 are
unquestionable. The compound can be used a safer fuel for nuclear reactors. Just the concept of safer nuclear power plants excites me.
But unfortunately there are only small amounts of H3 on Earth. There is enough to be studied but not be utilized.The Earth-bound H3
burns up in the atmosphere, where as the moon has no atmosphere and is therefore literally coated with the compound. The reason we
would want to harness the power of H3 is due to its incredibly low rate of radioactivity. The dangers of a nuclear fusion reactor would
be reduced to only minor threats according to popularmechanics.com. H3 will not wear down nuclear reactors as fast as Uranium,
therefore reducing the cost needed to replace the reactors. My question is, why are we not publicizing this? It's a great idea. The ability
to colonize the moon and reduce the use of our depleting fossil fuels is an invaluable resource. As long as our Sun exists we would
never run out of H3. For the first time the world would be looking at an infinite supply of energy. Aside from the elimination of
highly-radioactive reactors and reduction of the use of fossil fuels the moon mining would create a whole new section for the global
economy. The AIAASCTC's document asks for the United States to set up the lunar colony with the help of other international space agencies, so a free-market
economy would be created for the area of mining and scientific research. This process would narrow the dividing lines between our country and other countries with
space-exploration programs. I just hope we as a people are able to put our greed aside. This new development would be a major step
forward towards global peace and understanding because of the need for several countries to work as one. Lastly, this would take us
closer to the possibility of deep space exploration. It would be the first steps towards colonizing Mars. Telescopes could be set up on
the surface of the Moon to view deeper parts of space with out any interference from an atmosphere. For these reasons, lunar
colonization would launch us into a new area of progress for our economy and civilization.



                                             For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                    The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                            152/165

                                    SOLVENCY – SPACE EXPLORATION

We should mine the moon
Albuquerque Journal 12/5/06
[Mining the Moon Might Help Save Earth,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/756012/mining_the_moon_might_help_save_earth/index.html]
Among the nation's most prominent and vocal advocates for manned space exploration, he makes a great case for returning
astronauts to the moon; establishing a base colony from which to launch missions out into the solar system, in particular to
Mars; and, utilizing unique lunar resources to address what is becoming a major crisis on Earth, inadequate energy. The 71-
year-old Schmitt, in a wonderful, far-ranging interview with The Tribune's Sue Vorenberg published Friday ("Astronaut: We need to
return to the moon"), believes it will only happen if the private sector sees -- and is willing to pursue -- its business potential.
Ultimately, he's probably right, but getting there undoubtedly is going to require a committed government effort, which has the
greatest chance of succeeding if it is international in character, purpose, plan and implementation. In a world where we are
obsessed with terrorism, various forms of mass annihilation and nuclear proliferation -- all linked in many ways to a growing global
shortage of cheap energy, Schmitt believes that the main pieces are in place for commercial lunar development. As the fur trade
was to America's Western frontier, helium-3 is to lunar discovery and settlement. Helium-3, abundant on the moon where it has
been produced and trapped over billions of years by bombardment from solar particles, is the ideal fuel for a nuclear fusion energy
power plant. Never mind that scientists have been trying to produce sustained fusion power on earth for nearly half a century. With a
sustained fusion energy research program coupled to a lunar colonization and helium mining program, the world could look beyond its
petty squabbles -- most linked to energy and water shortages -- and to the energy abundance of the sun, the moon and the stars. It
sounds romantically improbable, but that's what they said about Columbus, Magellan, and Lewis and Clark. We need to regain their
will and courage to discover, persevere and prevail -- a few of the many character traits that make the United States the most
promising leader and organizer of a global mission to reclaim the moon for all mankind. For several decades, the challenge
that Kennedy first posed for nationalistic reasons has been dormant. The vision that Schmitt and other lunar proponents have
can re-ignite it for all humanity.

He-3 mining is key to further space exploration
Kazan 07—founder of The Daily Galaxy
[Casey, August 2nd, The Moon & Helium 3 -Earth's Energy Salvation, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/helium-3--
could.html]
Helium 3 fusion energy - classic Buck Rogers propulsion system- may be the key to future space exploration and settlement,
requiring less radioactive shielding, lightening the load. Scientists estimate there are about one million tons of helium 3 on the
moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could
supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year. Thermonuclear reactors capable of processing Helium-3 would have
to be built, along with major transport system to get various equipment to the Moon to process huge amounts of lunar soil and
get the minerals back to Earth. A new Moon-focused Space Race has begun. China made its first steps in space just a few years ago,
and is in the process of establishing a lunar base by 2024. NASA is currently working on a new space vehicle, Orion, which is
destined to fly the U.S. astronauts to the moon in 13 years, to deploy a permanent base. Russia, the first to put a probe on the moon,
plans to deploy a lunar base in 2015. A new, reusable spacecraft, called Kliper, has been earmarked for lunar flights, with the
International Space Station being an essential galactic pit stop. The harvesting of Helium-3 on the could start by 2025. Our lunar
mining could be but a jumping off point for Helium 3 extraction from the atmospheres of our Solar System gas giants, Saturn
and Jupiter. UN Treaties in place state that the moon and its minerals are the common heritage of mankind, so the quest to use
Helium-3 as an energy source would likely demand joint international co-operation. Hopefully, we won't need another Potsdam
Conference to work things out.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                              153/165

                                                   AT: THE MOON HAS NO H3

Lots of He-3 on the moon
Jacquot 8-24-07
[Jeremy Elton, The Race to Mine the Moon's Helium, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/the_race_to_mine.php]

While much attention has been focused of late on the scramble by several countries to claim the Arctic floor and its rich supply of
natural resources, a broader, more consequential race for resources may be looming on the horizon. Many of the world's leading powers,
including the U.S., Russia, China and India, are setting their sights on the moon — specifically on its vast supply of helium-3, a substance rarely found on
Earth that some believe could hold the key to fusion reaction.




                              For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      154/165


                              *** NANOMEDICINE COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               155/165

                                                  NANOMEDICINE 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should provide tax credits to companies which research and develop
nanomedicine and nanomedical supplies.

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Nanotech Competitiveness
Nanomedical innovation‘s key to US competitiveness
American Insitute for Medical and Biological Engineering 7/14/2006 ―AIMBE Interview with National Institutes of Health
Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, MD‖ http://www.aimbe.org/press/details.php?id=107&pid=192&tpid=
AIMBE: What initiatives does the NIH have in place, or is planning, to specifically help maintain US technological leadership in
medical and biological engineering? This is an industry that not only leads; it also has a positive balance of payments. "
Zerhouni: ―My point of view is that the NIH has been probably one of the very best investments in creating leadership in high
technology and in advancing U.S. science. If you look at the biotechnology industry—we created that industry out of the
fundamental research that was funded at NIH. And if you look at the pharmaceutical industry, 50 years ago the U.S. was not
number one as it is today. So NIH‘s ability to sustain a national research enterprise has been--and is--a strategic asset of the
United States, as we speak. And it‘s going to be even more important in the future. That‘s why it‘s important to sustain NIH‘s
funded institutions and their newly expanded capacity. ―One of the things that people don‘t appreciate is that during the doubling,
a huge expansion of research facilities and faculty occurred across the United States. For example, the increase in the number of
scientists who applied for grants was larger in the 2 years (2004-2005) following the doubling than the increase that occurred
during the entire doubling period (1999-2003). That provides us with an enormous advantage. That creates a lot of jobs. Just
between 1998 and 2004 there were over 4,000 new technologies licensed from our research. We are the number one federal
agency in terms of technology transfer and returns from technology transfer. ―I think it‘s important to understand that healthcare as
an economic activity is going to become the number one economic activity in the world, surpassing automobiles and many other
industries combined. So, we need to preserve our leadership in the biological sciences worldwide and the life sciences in general.
And I think we‘re doing that, but we need to be very cautious by not losing ground. We are a great part of the American
competitiveness equation. It is also true that quantitative sciences need to be improved, need to be supported, need to be
developed further because all fields of science need that. AIMBE: What do you see as the role for medical and biological
engineering - short- and long-term – in NIH‘s new Clinical Translation Science Awards program? Zerhouni: ―It‘s very important
to realize that biological engineering has many roles, not just one. It needs to intertwine itself within the entire spectrum of
research that is going to be critical in the future as we transform medicine and health. Many opportunities are going to present
themselves in the ongoing and future transformation from the traditional curative paradigm of medicine and health to a more pre-
emptive paradigm. And this is going to rely on very novel technologies. For example, we know already how the technology that
we‘re using in genomics is enabling us to enter this era of what we call the 4 Ps of medicine: medicine is going to be more
Predictive, more Personalized, more Pre-emptive, and it‘s going to be more Participatory." ―So when you look at that, you realize
that A) there‘ll be enormous progress in biosensing technology, biomonitoring, delivery systems, nanomedicine, tissue interfaces
with artificial systems, systems biology in general, and our ability to interface for example in neuroprosthesis, home monitoring,
the connection of information systems with health indicators at the individual level and population level, computational
biology, bioinformatics. So this transformation of health from the paradigm in which we intervene when disease is already
way advanced to a paradigm in which we intervene years before is going to require a transformation of the fundamental
engineering of medical systems and biological interfaces with effector products. That‘s why I think that biomedical
engineering is going to grow in importance, both in applied and basic science.‖




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      156/165


                                      *** CORN COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                157/165


                                                            CORN 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should eliminate US corn subsidies.


Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan Competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Obesity
Government subsidies decrease the cost of fast food, which increase its abundance in low income and minority neighborhoods
– this trades off with access to healthy foods
Andrea Freeman, J.D. University of California, Berkeley; 2007 (California Law Review. December, 2007; 95 Calif. L. Rev. 2221.
―Fast Food: Oppression Through Poor Nutrition‖) lexis
Even fast food's "natural" contents have wrought significant and often undesirable changes. The highly industrial methods of
producing fast food's staple ingredients have led to a dramatic increase in food-borne illnesses and, in contrast to traditional
animal husbandry, unprecedented incidence of cruelty to animals.'' Breeding techniques create new types of chickens designed
specifically for the purpose of making popular fast food items such as chicken nuggets. Through subsidies from the federal
government, intensive agriculture and corporate monocultures have developed to satisfy the needs of the fast food giants by
yielding higher rates of production per acre for specific crops such as com. The external cost of these higher production rates is
the destruction of environmental niches, leading in turn to the extinction of disfavored crop species, the elimination of small
farmers' capacity to plant secondary crops as a back-up to ensure their economic survival, and the decline of rural populations
and their supporting communities.* The ubiquity of fast food outlets has dramatically altered the appearance of American
highways, city streets, and suburbs. ^^ Recently, market forces have pushed supermarkets out of urban areas to meet the demand
created by suburban sprawl, leaving inner city residents with few, if any, sources of healthy food. Fast food first began to
infiltrate urban neighborhoods in earnest after the 1973 oil embargo, when gasoline shortages caused many Americans to believe
that the decline of the car culture had begun. After McDonald's' stock market value fell dramatically in response to the shortage,
the chain shifted its focus from highways to urban centers and suburbs in search of new, more dependable markets.^' Today,
McDonald's and other chains strategize their expansion based on sophisticated cartographic software that uses satellite imagery
to predict urban growth and locate school districts.^" While the growth of fast food in poor urban neighborhoods has
increased steadily, supermarkets stocking fresh, high-quality food have simultaneously relocated to the more spacious
and affluent suburbs.^' Economic realities, spatial considerations, industry-related concerns, and social factors have all led to
supermarket divestment of poor urban areas. ^^ This migration, combined with lack of transportation to the suburbs and the
higher prices charged by local convenience stores, has made fast food the dominant food source in many low income, urban
communities.

Corn subsidies are contributing to the obesity pandemic by flooding the market with cheap high-fructose corn syrup and
keeping the price of healthier alternatives inflated
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 112, Number 14, October 2004, ―The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster
Poor Health?‖ http://www.ehponline.org/members/2004/112-14/spheres.html
Ever since the Great Depression, American farmers have been the beneficiaries of a medley of subsidies and support programs meant
to stabilize crop prices, keep farmers farming, and provide U.S. families with an affordable, reliable supply of food. But these
programs may have had an unintended side effect. Rather than keep Americans healthy, critics say, these policies have contributed to
today's obesity pandemic and other nutrition problems as well. Writing in the 2004 Annual Review of Nutrition, James Tillotson, a
professor of food policy and international business at Tufts University, argues that U.S public policy encourages obesity at the
expense of sound nutritional practices. "You have a whole régime here that's worked to increase agricultural efficiency," Tillotson
says. And what U.S. farmers are most efficient at producing, he says, are just a few highly subsidized crops--wheat, soybeans, and
especially corn. Support for these few crops, critics say, has compelled farmers to ignore other crops such as fruits, vegetables,
and other grains. The market is flooded with products made from the highly subsidized crops, including sweeteners in the
form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fats in the form of hydrogenated fats made from soybeans, and feed for cattle and pigs.
This flood, in turn, drives down the prices of fattening fare such as prepackaged snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fast food, corn-fed beef
and pork, and soft drinks. Worse yet, some scientists say, paltry support for foods other than these staples increases the contrast
between prices of fat-laden, over sweetened foods and those of healthier alternatives, offering poor folks little choice but to stock their
pantries with less nutritious foods.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                       The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                               158/165


                                               SOLVENCY – SUBSIDIES

The CP is a prerequisite---corn subsidies are skyrocketing the price of healthy food making it impossible for low-income
families to purchase
Sean      Mussenden         11/13/07     ―Subsidies     Encourage      Unhealthy     Eating‖     Media       General      News     Service
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/subsidies-encourage-unhealthy-eating/49/
Researchers have found that the poorest communities tend to have the most obese people. That correlation is especially strong in
Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina, the Media General analysis found. Several factors contribute to the link between obesity
and poverty, but health researchers are still sorting out how big a role each one plays. Flashy ads send powerful messages to eat fast
food instead of healthy food. Unhealthy food often tastes better and satisfies hunger faster than nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables.
Low-income neighborhoods face additional challenges. They tend to have more fast-food restaurants and fewer places to buy fresh
fruits and vegetables. Many poor people lack transportation or time to get to well-stocked stores in wealthier neighborhoods. And,
eating healthy costs more than eating unhealthy food. Everyone needs a certain amount of calories to live - around 2,000 a day -
whether those calories come from steamed broccoli or French fries, grilled chicken or Big Macs. It costs far less to get the calories
from unhealthy foods with added oils or sweeteners than it does from nutritious foods like fresh vegetables. Energy-dense foods made
with subsidized crops like soybean oil and high-fructose corn syrup have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. "There's a huge
cost disparity. It's not a coincidence that low-income people will gravitate towards cheaper, energy-dense foods that are nutritionally
poor," said Adam Drewnowski, director of the nutritional sciences program at the University of Washington. His studies have found
that foods made from subsidized crops - like cookies and soda -- cost five times less per calorie than unsubsidized foods -- like
carrots or orange juice. Drewnowski finds it ironic that the Agriculture Department encourages people to eat vegetables like lettuce
or carrots that are not subsidized, and therefore more expensive, while giving people an economic incentive through subsidies to buy
foods it says they should eat sparingly.

Corn would not be so successful if it weren‘t for USDA subsidies- without these, exports would slow and prices would rise-
economic analysis proves
Oxfam, Truth or consequences: Why the EU and the USA must reform their subsidies, or pay the price, Oxfam Briefing Paper 81,
Nov/2005, p. 16, http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/downloads/bp81_truth.pdf
However, the success of US corn in international markets is only possible because of the huge subsidies paid by the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), regardless of how much corn is produced. Without this money, a large proportion of US
production would be chronically unprofitable. According to the USDA, the average corn farmer has lost about $230 for each
planted acre of corn over the past five years, amounting to almost $20bn in losses for the corn sector as a whole. Fortunately for
US corn farmers, government subsidies have more than made up for this shortfall, topping $25bn over the same period. Thanks
to $8bn in subsidies, US production of corn in 2004 was the highest on record, while plantings were the highest in 20 years. US
production of corn continues to expand, despite low prices and chronic market losses. Without subsidies, US corn production and
exports would be lower, and world corn prices would be higher. This has been confirmed by economic analysis showing that,
without marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments, the USA‘s production of corn in 2004 would have declined by 15 per
cent, exports would have disappeared, and world prices would have been 7 percent higher.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              159/165


                                              SOLVENCY – SPILLOVER

The CP functionally does the aff---spillover solves---subsidy cuts result in nutrition programs
Des Moines Register 2-27-09 (Phillip Brasher ―Obama wants to cut
subsidies to farmers‖ online)
President Barack Obama wants to cut subsidies to many full-time farmers and spend the money on child nutrition programs. The
president's proposed 2010 budget would phase out fixed annual payments to farmers who have more than $500,000 in annual
sales. That threshold would catch commercial-scale farms across Iowa and other states, economists say. An estimated 81,000
farmers nationwide would lose their payments. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the cuts in farm subsidies are needed to
address the nation's obesity problem. Spending for the Forest Service, part of the Agriculture Department, also would rise under
the budget. Nearly 9,500 Iowa farms reported sales of more than $500,000 in 2007, including 4,213 with revenue over $1
million. Those million-dollar farms accounted for nearly half the state's farm revenue that year, according to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. "If you had a dollar - one dollar - where would you put it?" Vilsack asked. "Would you give it to a child for more
nutritious eating? Would you give it in a direct payment to a high-income (farm) operation?" The cut would not affect other
subsidies, such as those tied to fluctuations in crop prices and payments for conservation measures.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 160/165


                                                 SOLVENCY – OBESITY

Government subsidies incentivizes the gross overproduction of corn resulting in cheap unhealthy food – the shift to high
fructose corn syrup is directly responsible for the American obesity crisis
Shea Dean, writer and editor, English Literature – Brown, MA - Boston University, ―Children of the Corn Syrup,‖ The Believer,
October, 2003, http://www.believermag.com/issues/200310/?read=article_dean
High-fructose corn syrup was, to the food industry, a miracle product. Six times sweeter than cane sugar, it could be made at a
fraction of the cost and used as a preservative, a sweetener, or both. By the late 1970s it was being pumped into frozen foods to
protect them from freezer burn and to ―long-shelf-life‖ products to keep them ―fresh-tasting.‖ The very definition of empty
calories, it was added to packaged pastries to make them look as if they were baked in the past decade and to fast-food
drumsticks and hamburgers to keep them from shriveling up under heat lamps. In the early 1980s, Coke and Pepsi switched from
a fifty-fifty blend of cane and corn sugar to 100 percent high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), lopping 20 percent off their production
costs. Critser calls the shift ―one of the most important changes to the nation‘s food supply.‖
HFCS consumption has grown tenfold since Butz‘s time. Critser even suggests that this single product could be responsible for
the obesity epidemic in America. Technically, the body metabolizes fructose differently than it does other sweeteners. ―Unlike its
cousin sucrose,‖ Critser writes, ―fructose is selectively ‗shunted‘ toward the liver; it does not go through some of the critical
intermediary breakdown steps that sucrose does.‖ (If you don‘t drink much soda, try buying a Snapple and a Nantucket Nectar
lemonade and monitor closely how you feel after drinking each. The Snapple, which contains HFCS, will pop your head off. The
Nantucket Nectar, which doesn‘t, won‘t.) The liver uses fructose to build triglycerides, which can trigger insulin resistance,
which can trigger diabetes, which can trigger obesity.


Corn is the most important subsidy to cut- it's the crux of nutritional problems and prevalent in every American‘s diet
Rich Levy, Executive Director for the non-profit literacy group "In Print Houston" and pharmaceutical executive, What‘s in Your
Ear?, published in Steamboat Springs Newspaper, June 20, 2008,
http://www.ewg.org/node/26741
Corn is the nation‘s most-planted, most-processed, most-subsidized crop in the United States, with 92.9 million acres planted.
Most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed. Corn is also processed into a multitude of food and
industrial products including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol. Almost everything
Americans eat contains corn. High fructose corn syrup, corn-fed meat, and corn-based processed foods are staples of the
modern American diet. Deep Roots and the Trappers Lake Sierra Club are pleased to present a new film to our community in
an attempt to raise awareness about these global issues. King Corn is a feature documentary about two friends, one acre of corn,
and the subsidized crop that drives our fast-food nation. In King Corn, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, best friends from college on
the east coast, move to the heartland of America to learn where their food comes from. With the help of friendly neighbors,
genetically modified seeds, and powerful herbicides, they plant and grow a bumper crop of America‘s most-productive, most-
subsidized grain on one acre of Iowa soil. But when they try to follow their pile of corn into the food system, what they find
raises troubling questions about how we eat-and how we farm. This Free event will be held on Friday June 20th at 6:30 p.m. at
the new Community Center. Refreshments will be provided by Healthy Solutions, Bamboo Market, and Sweet Pea Produce."If
you take a McDonald‘s meal, you don‘t realize it when you eat it, but you‘re eating corn. Beef has been corn-fed. Soda is corn.
Even the French fries. Half the calories in the French fries come from the fat they‘re fried in, which is liable to be either corn oil
or soy oil. So when you‘re at McDonald‘s, you‘re eating Iowa food. Everything on your plate is corn." -- Michael Pollan, UC
Berkeley, in King Corn.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                161/165


                                               SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Subsidy removal positively helps the economy---Mexico proves
Atlantic Economic Journal June, 1999 ―The impact of removing corn subsidies in Mexico: a general equilibrium assessment‖
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/55208441.html
The foregoing analysis has shown that outside of the corn-growing sector itself, there would be no significant adverse impact of a
subsidy removal. The implications of this finding for policymakers are far-reaching and directly related to the recent free-trade
agreements which have been negotiated and signed. As mentioned at the outset, negotiators from Mexico have been under
considerable pressure to reduce the size of existing subsidies on corn, and the results here suggest that such actions would be relatively
painless. While it is true that all classes of consumers are initially made worse off and that the income changes here are somewhat
regressive in nature, the resulting increase in government income can be used to correct this distortion. These transfer payments could
be targeted to displaced workers as well as the working poor who face inflationary pressures due to rising food costs. Alternatively,
the government could use this opportunity to decrease the rate on the existing value-added tax which would have the effect of
reducing economic distortions and improving the allocation of resources. Care must be taken, however, to implement all of these
changes over an extended period of time to avoid extraordinary gains or losses. Finally, the results in Table 4 have important
implications for economic grow and development. As noted above, this decrease in subsidy levels will lead to a marked increase in
saving and, consequently, on the level of economic investment. This increase, if maintained over a number of years, would
positively affect the formation of capital and facilitate the type of growth currently favored by organizations such as the World
Bank and the IMF.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                        The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                162/165


                                                   AT: SUGAR WORSE

High fructose corn syrup is behind the growing obesity epidemic, not sugar.
AARP 4 ―What's Worse Than Sugar?‖ April 23. http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/healthyliving/articles/sugar.html
The perils of sugar have been understood for years, but now there's evidence of a new and even more dangerous consequence of
our craving for sweets. Dietary experts and scientists are singling out one in particular—high-fructose corn syrup—as a reason
for the startling rise in obesity in America and a related increase in diabetes cases. "I think it's a huge problem," says Richard
Anderson, a scientist at the federal Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, Md. "High-fructose corn syrup is metabolized
differently than other sugars, and it has a different effect on health." High-fructose corn syrup is not the bottled stuff you buy at
the grocery store to make pecan pie or jelly. It's an additive that's cheaper and easier to use than sugar, making it the leading
sweetener in sodas and fruit juices. It turns up in everything from pizza and yogurt to breakfast cereal, baby food and beer. Food
manufacturers began substituting high-fructose corn syrup for sugar in the 1970s. Its use skyrocketed in the 1990s, when people
turned to low-fat foods and forgot about calories and sugar content.
Today annual consumption of the sweetener tops 60 pounds per person in this country, up from only about half a pound in 1970,
the U.S. Agriculture Department reports. Americans swallow more of it than regular sugar. "There's something important in the
fact that the increase in the use of high-fructose corn syrup coincides with the obesity epidemic in this country," says George
Bray, M.D., a diabetes expert and professor at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. "[The coincidence]
is not easily explained away."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                      The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                              163/165


                                 AT: CUTTING SUBSIDIES DOESN’T HELP

Mexico proves that eliminating corn subsidies decreases corn production, which is filled in by other crops
Atlantic Economic Journal June, 1999 ―The impact of removing corn subsidies in Mexico: a general equilibrium assessment‖
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/55208441.html
The results of these simulations which show the impact of subsidy and tariff removal on industrial production, percentage
changes in production, and relative prices, are listed in Table 3 by sector for both scenarios (that is, 50 percent and 100 percent
subsidy and tariff elimination). Table 3 shows that, in most cases, as the size of subsidy and tariff reduction on corn increases,
all those industries that are positively (negatively) affected by lifting subsidies and tariffs on corn will experience a greater
positive (negative) effect. According to these findings, the sector that loses the most is corn. As the percentage of subsidy and
tariff reduction on corn increases, this sector experiences a rapid reduction in production. With a 50 percent subsidy and tariff
removal, production of corn decreases by 11.22 percent (1.825 billion new pesos) with respect to the benchmark year. When the
subsidy and tariff on corn decreases by 100 percent, then production of corn declines by 20.08 percent (3.266 billion new pesos)
from the benchmark year. While the reductions in the corn subsidy bring about a reduction in its production, production of other
agricultural goods rises as substantial hectares of land are released from corn production. The simulation results show that the
production of other agricultural crops increases by 6.81 percent (1.614 billion new pesos) with a 50 percent subsidy and tariff
removal and increases by 12.29 percent (2.914 billion new pesos) with a 100 percent subsidy and tariff removal with respect to
the benchmark. However, as the simulation results in Table 3 indicate, the effects of lifting the subsidy of corn on the
nonagricultural sector of the economy are not significant. In most cases, their production changes by one-tenth of a percent or
less. Table 4 shows the effects of corn subsidy removal on various consuming sectors. The percentage changes in this table are
generally smaller than those in Table 3. Like the response of the production sectors to subsidy removal, in most cases, the
percentage changes in consumption increase as the subsidy and tariff removal rate on corn increases. Furthermore, of the 13
consuming sectors, only one sector (saving) shows an increase. However, these reductions (for both the 50 percent and 100
percent subsidy and tariff removal) are rather small in percentage terms. They vary between 0.0015 percent (for energy) and
0.046 percent (for food). Therefore, subsidy and tariff removal on corn does not seem to have a significant effect on the overall
economy in terms of consumption. Consumers substitute production of corn with an increase in the production of other crops, so
the overall consumption effect of this policy on food consumption as a whole is rather small.


Eliminating corn subsidies brings down production levels and boosts price level for the world‘s farmers --this is the best way
to positively impact farmers worldwide who have been marginalized by
subsidies
Oxfam, Truth or consequences: Why the EU and the USA must reform their subsidies, or pay the price, Oxfam Briefing Paper 81,
Nov/2005, p. 16, http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/downloads/bp81_truth.pdf
As major corn exporters, Argentina, Paraguay, and South Africa could assert that US corn subsidies cause adverse effects to their
interests by suppressing the international price of corn and impeding their exports to markets around the world, in breach part III,
Articles 5(c) and 6.3(b) and (c) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Producers in countries that
import US corn---such as Columbia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela---also suffer
from the effects of US corn subsidies. These countries could assert that US corn subsidies injure their domestic interests in
violation of part III, Article 5(a) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. A successful challenge of
US corn subsidies---which Oxfam‘s legal sources believe is likely---would require the US to remove the adverse effects or to
withdraw the corn subsidies, or to offer compensation to aggrieved WTO members demonstrating serious prejudice.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                              The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                      164/165


                                    *** BAILOUT COUNTERPLAN ***




                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
Tampa Prep 2009-2010                                                                                         The Advantage of Being Neg
Gonzo and Lison                                                                                                                 165/165


                                                         BAILOUT 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should commit 1 trillion dollars in aid to the 50 states over the next 2 years.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan Competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) State Economies
1 trillion dollars in aid to the states would solve economic recession
Mattoon, senior economist and economic advisor @ Chicago Federal Reserve. August 2009.
Richard. ―Should the Federal Government Bail Out the States? Lessons from Past Recessions.‖ Chicago Federal Reserve Bank
Essay Number 265. http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflaugust2009_265.pdf [Mardjuki]
Like the economy in general, individual state economies are struggling in this recession. State governments face significant
constraints in raising additional revenues. Most states are required to balance their budgets regardless of the economic
environment. This article considers the role of the federal government in helping the states to manage their finances. State
government budget woes have been much in the news. Recently, California projected a $21 billion deficit after failing to get
voter approval for a series of budget balancing fiscal measures.1 In January of this year, five prominent Democratic governors
suggested that the federal government should commit $1 trillion in aid to the states over the next two years.2 The rationale for
such financial support is that states (which are generally prohibited from running deficits) need the money to maintain key
programs, such as Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and work force training, for which demand rises during a recession. Also,
this aid might help states avoid enacting spending cuts or tax increases that could deepen or prolong the economic downturn.

Federal dollars are key to preventing pro-cyclical actions that harm the economy
Lav, Gold award for contribution to state fiscal policy, state budget and tax expert, McNichol, state budget and tax senior fellow.
6/29/09. Iris and Elizabeth. ―State Budget Troubles Worsen.‖ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711 [Mardjuki]
The current situation has been made more difficult because many states never fully recovered from the fiscal crisis of the early part of
the decade. This heightens the potential impact on public services of the shortfalls states now are projecting. State spending fell
sharply relative to the economy during the 2001 recession, and for all states combined it still remains below the fiscal year 2001 level.
In 18 states, general fund spending for fiscal year 2008 — six years into the economic recovery — remained below pre-recession
levels as a share of the gross domestic product. In a number of states the reductions made during the downturn in education, higher
education, health coverage, and child care remain in effect. These important public services were suffering even as states turned to
budget cuts to close the new budget gaps. Spending as a share of the economy declined in fiscal year 2008 and is projected to decline
further in 2009 and again in 2010. One way states can avoid making deep reductions in services during a recession is to build up rainy
day funds and other reserves. At the end of fiscal year 2006, state reserves — general fund balances and rainy day funds — totaled
11.5 percent of annual state spending. Reserves can be particularly important to help states adjust in the early months of a fiscal crisis,
but generally are not sufficient to avert the need for substantial budget cuts or tax increases. In this recession, states have already
drawn down much of their available reserves; the available reserves in states with deficits are likely to be depleted in the near future.
Federal assistance Crucial. Federal assistance can lessen the extent to which states need to take pro-cyclical actions that can further
harm the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes this fact and includes substantial assistance for states.
The amount in ARRA to help states maintain current activities is about $135 billion to $140 billion — or less than half of projected
state shortfalls. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a ―Fiscal Stabilization Fund.‖ This money has
reduced to a degree the depth of state spending cuts and moderated state tax and fee increases. There are also other streams of funding
in the economic recovery act flowing through states to local governments or individuals, but this will not address state budget
shortfalls.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:28
posted:2/1/2012
language:English
pages:165
jianghongl jianghongl http://
About