Docstoc

Advantage_Counterplans

Document Sample
Advantage_Counterplans Powered By Docstoc
					Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                       1/448


                                                     ADVANTAGE COUNTERPLANS INDEX
Advantage Counterplans Index .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Notes on the File ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Advantage Map 1/4 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Advantage Map 2/4 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Advantage Map 3/4 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Advantage Map 4/4 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Counterplan Texts Page ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15

*** Student Loans Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Student Loans 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18

*** Legalize Drugs Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Legalize Drugs 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Solvency – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................... 21
AT: This Counterplan is Stupid ............................................................................................................................................................... 22

*** Geopolymeric Cement Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Geopolymeric Cement 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Solvency – Warming................................................................................................................................................................................ 27

*** Biofortification Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Solvency – Food Impacts ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29

*** Death Penalty Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
Death Penalty 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Solvency – Human Rights ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32

*** Satalites Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Satalites 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Solvency – Disease .................................................................................................................................................................................. 35
New Systems Key .................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

*** Ultraviolet Light Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................... 37
Ultraviolet Light 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Solvency – TB ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

*** Department of Education Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Department of Education ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41

*** ENDA Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................................... 42
ENDA 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
Solvency – Heteronormitivity .................................................................................................................................................................. 44
ENDA Will Pass (CP Popular) ................................................................................................................................................................ 45

*** Prisoner Transfer Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 46
Prisoner Transer 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 47

*** CRC Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................................................... 48
CRC 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Solvency – Child Rights .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Solvency – Soft Power ............................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Solvency – Soft Power ............................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Solvency – Human Rights Leadership ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
AT: Unconstitutional ............................................................................................................................................................................... 54
AT: CRC Bad Turns ................................................................................................................................................................................ 55
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                               2/448
AT: Federalism Turns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 56
AT: Abortion Turns ................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
AT: Child Executions Turn ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58
AT: Sovreignty Turns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 59
AT: Parental Rights ................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
Politics – Popular ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Politics – Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 62

*** Legacies Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................. 63
Legacies 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Solvency – Racism................................................................................................................................................................................... 65

*** Foreign Aid Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................................... 66
Foreign Aid 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Ext - Needs Reform ................................................................................................................................................................................. 68
AT: Aid Doesn’t Work/Aid Exists Now .................................................................................................................................................. 69

*** Broadband Franchizing Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................... 70
Broadband Franchising 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Solvency – Broadband ............................................................................................................................................................................. 72
Solvency – Broadband ............................................................................................................................................................................. 73
Broadband Solves Competitiveness ......................................................................................................................................................... 74
Broadband Solves Heg ............................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Broadband Solves Freedom of Speech .................................................................................................................................................... 76
AT: Only Solves the Wealthy .................................................................................................................................................................. 77

*** WHO Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................................... 78
WHO 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Solvency – Diseases ................................................................................................................................................................................. 80
Solvency – Diseases ................................................................................................................................................................................. 81
Solvency – Diseases ................................................................................................................................................................................. 82
Solvency – Global Poverty ...................................................................................................................................................................... 83
US Funding Key ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 84

*** Offshore Balancing Counterplan ***................................................................................................................................................ 85
Offshore Balancing 1NC 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Offshore Balancing 1NC 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Solvency – Heg ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 88
Solvency – Heg ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 89
Solvency – Heg ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 90
Solvency – Prolif ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Solvency – Terror .................................................................................................................................................................................... 92
AT: Transition Wars ................................................................................................................................................................................ 93

*** Reuiniting Families Act Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................... 94
Reuniting Families 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................... 96
Politics – Unpopular ................................................................................................................................................................................ 97

*** Small Businesses Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 98
Small Businesses 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 99
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 100

*** Interest Rates Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................................... 101
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 102
AT: Household Hoarding ....................................................................................................................................................................... 103

*** Micro Loan Counterplan *** .......................................................................................................................................................... 104
Micro Loans 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 105
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                            Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                           3/448
*** Ban The Electoral College Counterplan ***................................................................................................................................... 106
Electoral College 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Solvency – Democracy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Solvency – Democracy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 109
AT: Federalism Turn.............................................................................................................................................................................. 110
AT: Hurts Minorities.............................................................................................................................................................................. 111
AT: Cohenion Turns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 112
AT: Legitimacy Turns............................................................................................................................................................................ 113
AT: Recount Turns ................................................................................................................................................................................ 114
AT: Third Parties Turn........................................................................................................................................................................... 115
Politics – Popular (Public) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 116

*** Conference Counterplan *** .......................................................................................................................................................... 117
Conference 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................... 118
Solves Democracy ................................................................................................................................................................................. 119

*** Native Gaming Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................... 120
Native Gaming 1NC 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 121
Native Gaming 1NC 2/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 122
Solvency – Self Determination .............................................................................................................................................................. 123
States Interfereing Now ......................................................................................................................................................................... 124

*** CEDAW Counterplan *** .............................................................................................................................................................. 125
CEDAW CP 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 126
Solvency – Patriarchy ............................................................................................................................................................................ 127
solvency – Human Rights ...................................................................................................................................................................... 130

*** Global Poverty Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................... 140
Global Poverty CP 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 141
Solvency – Global Poverty .................................................................................................................................................................... 142
Solvency – Global Poverty .................................................................................................................................................................... 143
AT: Corruption ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 144
AT: US Poverty ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 145

*** Ghitmo Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................................. 146
Ghitmo CP 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 147
AT: Ghitmo Closed ................................................................................................................................................................................ 148
Solvency – Soft Power ........................................................................................................................................................................... 149
Solvency – Soft Power ........................................................................................................................................................................... 150
Solvency – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................. 151
Solvency – Human Rights Leadership ................................................................................................................................................... 152
Solvency Modifier – Obama Signal ....................................................................................................................................................... 153
Politics – Dems Oppose ......................................................................................................................................................................... 154
Politics – Unpopular .............................................................................................................................................................................. 155
Politics – Counterplan is a Win.............................................................................................................................................................. 156

*** Readiness Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................................. 157
Readiness CP 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................. 158
Solvency – Readiness ............................................................................................................................................................................ 159

*** Conjugal Visits Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................... 160
Conjugal Visits 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 161
Solvency – Prison Rape ......................................................................................................................................................................... 162
AT: Rape is About Power Not Sex ........................................................................................................................................................ 163
AT: Other Problems ............................................................................................................................................................................... 164

*** Clear the Skies Initiative Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................... 165
Clear The Skies Initiative 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................. 166
Solvency – Air Pollution ........................................................................................................................................................................ 167
Solvency – Air Pollution (Status Quo Fails) .......................................................................................................................................... 168
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                              4/448
Solvency – Ecosystems .......................................................................................................................................................................... 169
Solvency – States ................................................................................................................................................................................... 170
AT: Litigation Delays Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................ 171
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 172

*** Sewage Cap & Trade Counterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................... 173
Sewage Cap & Trade 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 174
Solvency Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 175
Solvency Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 176
Solvency Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 177
AT: Alt Cause – Phosphorus .................................................................................................................................................................. 178
Net Benefit – Biodiversity 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 179
Net Benefit – Biodiversity 2/2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 180
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 181

*** Clean Water SRF Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................. 182
Clean Water SRF 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Solvency – Water Polution .................................................................................................................................................................... 184
Solvency Extensions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 185
Inherency Extensions ............................................................................................................................................................................. 186
Net Benefit – Politics: Unpopular .......................................................................................................................................................... 187
Net Benefit – Politics: Popular............................................................................................................................................................... 188

*** Sustainable Agriculture Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................... 189
Sustainable Agriculutre 1NC 1/4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 190
Sustainable Agriculutre 1NC 2/4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 191
Sustainable Agriculture 1NC 3/4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 192
Sustainable Agriculture 1NC 4/4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 193
Link Extionsions – Livestock  Deforestation ..................................................................................................................................... 194
Impact Extensions – Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................................................... 195
Impact Extensions – Deforestation ........................................................................................................................................................ 196
AT: No Brink to Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................................ 197
2NC – Deforestation Impact Calc .......................................................................................................................................................... 198
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 199
Global Solvency – Land Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 200

*** Pressure Israel Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................... 201
Pressure Israel 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................... 202
Solvency – Proliferation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 203
Solvency – NPT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 204
Solvency - NPT ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 205
Solvency – Soft Power ........................................................................................................................................................................... 206
AT: CP Destroys Israeli Relations 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................... 207
AT: CP Destroys Israeli Relations ......................................................................................................................................................... 208

*** Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................... 209
Comprehensive Test Ban 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 210
Solvency – Nuclear Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................. 211
Solvency – Nuclear Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................. 212
AT: We need to Test New Nuclear Weapons ........................................................................................................................................ 213
Solvency – Proliferation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 214
Solvency – Proliferation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 215
Solvency – Terrorism and Arms Races .................................................................................................................................................. 216
Solvency – Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................ 217
Solvency – U.s. Credibility .................................................................................................................................................................... 218
Net Benefit – Politcis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 219
Net Benefit – Elections .......................................................................................................................................................................... 220
Net Benefit – Congress Agenda?? (I think these Flow Aff) .................................................................................................................. 221
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                            5/448
*** F-22 Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................................... 222
F-22 CP 1NC 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 223
F-22 CP 1NC 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 224
Solvency – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................................................... 225
Solvency – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................................................... 226
Solvency – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................................................... 227
Solvency – Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................. 228
2NC Overview – DA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 229

*** RAtify Kyoto CP *** ...................................................................................................................................................................... 230
Ratify Kyoto 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 231

*** Fund NASA COunterplan *** ........................................................................................................................................................ 232
NASA 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 233
Inherency Extensions – Funding ............................................................................................................................................................ 234
Link – Lack of Funding Undermines Exploration ................................................................................................................................. 235

*** Mine The Moon Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 236
Mine The Moon 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 237
Solvency – Space Exploration ............................................................................................................................................................... 238
AT: The Moon Has No H3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 239

*** Phytoplankton Counterplan ***...................................................................................................................................................... 240
Phytoplankton 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 241
Ext. Dumping Iron  Phytoplankton .................................................................................................................................................... 242
Solvency – Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................................... 243
Evidence Indict ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 244
AT: U.S. Will Prevent Iron Dumping .................................................................................................................................................... 245

*** Columbian Free Trade Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................... 246
Columbian Free Trade 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................... 247
Solvency – Checks Chavez .................................................................................................................................................................... 248
Solvency – Checks Chavez / Hegemony ............................................................................................................................................... 249
Solvency – Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................................................... 250
Solvency – Free Trade ........................................................................................................................................................................... 251
Solvency – Environment ........................................................................................................................................................................ 252
Solvency – U.S. Trade Credibility ......................................................................................................................................................... 253
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 254
Solvency – Democracy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 255
Net Benefit – Agenda DA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 256
Uniqueness Ext – Pass Now .................................................................................................................................................................. 257
Internal Link Ext – Political Capitol Key .............................................................................................................................................. 258

*** ANWR Drilling Counterplan *** ................................................................................................................................................... 259
ANWR CP 1NC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 260
Solvency – Ecomony ............................................................................................................................................................................. 261
Solvency – Oil Dependence ................................................................................................................................................................... 262
Solvency – Water ................................................................................................................................................................................... 263
AT: Drilling in ANWR Kills Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................. 264
AT: Drilling in ANWR Kills Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................. 265
AT: No Timeframe ................................................................................................................................................................................ 266

*** R&D Counterplan *** .................................................................................................................................................................... 267
R&D 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 268
Solvency – Renewable Energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 269
Solvency – Economies ........................................................................................................................................................................... 270
Solvency – Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 271
Solvency – Developing Countries.......................................................................................................................................................... 272
Solvency – National Security ................................................................................................................................................................. 273
Solvency – Oil Dependence ................................................................................................................................................................... 274
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                             6/448
Solvency – Oil Consumption ................................................................................................................................................................. 275
Solvency – Biofuels ............................................................................................................................................................................... 276
Solvency – Climate ................................................................................................................................................................................ 277
AT: R&D Hurts the Economy ............................................................................................................................................................... 278
Solvency – Oil Prices and Economy ...................................................................................................................................................... 279
Solvency – EU Cooperation................................................................................................................................................................... 280
Solvency – Compettitiveness ................................................................................................................................................................. 281
Solvency – Laundry List ........................................................................................................................................................................ 282
AT: Perm (Cap and Trade) .................................................................................................................................................................... 283
AT: No Spillover to Third World .......................................................................................................................................................... 284
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 285

*** Education Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................................. 286
Education 1NC ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 287
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 288
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 289

*** Cluster Groups Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................... 290
Cluster Groups 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................... 291
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 292
AT: CLusters Fail .................................................................................................................................................................................. 294

*** Chemical Industry Tax Credits Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................ 295
Tax Credits CP 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 296
2NC Gas Price Spikes Add-On (Only against reg Cases) ...................................................................................................................... 297
Solvency – Competiveness and Tech Leadership .................................................................................................................................. 298
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 299
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 300
Solvency – Competitiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 301
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 302
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 303

*** Efficiency Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................................ 304
Efficiency 1NC 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 305
Efficiency 1NC 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 306
Solvency – Blackouts ............................................................................................................................................................................. 307
Solvency – Climate Change/Energy Security ........................................................................................................................................ 308
Solvency – Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................................... 309
Solvency – Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................................... 310
Solvency – Air Pollution ........................................................................................................................................................................ 311
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 312
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 313
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 314
Solvency – Poverty ................................................................................................................................................................................ 315
Solvency – It’s Cost Efficient ................................................................................................................................................................ 316
AT: Efficiency  More Consumption .................................................................................................................................................. 317
AT: Alt Energy Key ............................................................................................................................................................................... 318
AT: Perm / Net Benefit – Politics .......................................................................................................................................................... 319
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 320
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 321

*** Nanomedicine Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 322
Nanomedicine 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 323

*** Fund FEMA Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................................... 324
Fund FEMA 1NC................................................................................................................................................................................... 325

*** Ban Biofuel Subsidies Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................... 326
Ban Biofuel Subsidies CP 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................. 327
Solvency – Food Prices and Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 328
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                         7/448
Solvency – Food Prices.......................................................................................................................................................................... 329
Ext – Brazil will sell us ethanol ............................................................................................................................................................. 330

*** Fund CGIAR Counterplan *** ....................................................................................................................................................... 331
Fund CGIAR 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................. 332
Solvency – Famine / Poverty ................................................................................................................................................................. 333
Solvency – Famine ................................................................................................................................................................................. 334

*** Ban Food Aid Counterplan *** ...................................................................................................................................................... 343
Ban Food Aid 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 344
Solvency – Poverty ................................................................................................................................................................................ 345
AT: Farmers DA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 346
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 347

*** Water Privatization Counterplan *** .............................................................................................................................................. 348
Solvency – Water Access and Poverty................................................................................................................................................... 349
Solvency – Water Access....................................................................................................................................................................... 350
Solvency – Water Wars ......................................................................................................................................................................... 351
2NC Evidence Indict .............................................................................................................................................................................. 352
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 353
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 354

*** Close The Loophole Counterplan *** ............................................................................................................................................ 355
Close the Loophole 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................ 356
Solvency – Oil Prices ............................................................................................................................................................................. 357
Solvency – Oil Prices ............................................................................................................................................................................. 358

*** Public Transportatrion Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................... 359
Public Transportation 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................... 360
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 361
Solvency – Peak Oil ............................................................................................................................................................................... 362

*** café Standards Counterplan *** ..................................................................................................................................................... 363
café Standards CP 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 364
Solvency – Oil Dependence ................................................................................................................................................................... 365
Solvency – Oil Spills ............................................................................................................................................................................. 366
Solvency – Caspian Conflicts ................................................................................................................................................................ 367
Solvency – ANWR ................................................................................................................................................................................ 368
Solvency – Economy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 369
AT: Oil Makes People Drive Less ......................................................................................................................................................... 370

*** Hybrid Cars Counterplan *** ......................................................................................................................................................... 371
Hybrid Cars 1NC 1/4 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 372
Hybrid Cars 1NC 2/4 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 373
Hybrid Cars 1NC 3/4 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 374
Hybrid Cars 1NC 4/4 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 375
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 376

*** Carbon Tax Counterplan *** .......................................................................................................................................................... 377
Carbon Tax 1NC 1/2 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 378
Carbon Tax 1NC 2/2 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 379
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 380
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 381
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 382
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 383
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 384
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 385
Solvency – Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................. 386
Solvency - Competitiveness ................................................................................................................................................................... 387
Solvency – States ................................................................................................................................................................................... 388
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                 8/448
Solvency – Renewables ......................................................................................................................................................................... 389
Solvency – Modeling ............................................................................................................................................................................. 390
Extensions – Revenues Help People ...................................................................................................................................................... 391
Extensions – Revenues Help People ...................................................................................................................................................... 392
AT: Carbon Tax Hurts Economy ........................................................................................................................................................... 393
AT: Carbon Tax Hurts Economy ........................................................................................................................................................... 394
AT: Carbon Tax Hurts Economy ........................................................................................................................................................... 395
AT: Carbon Taxes Hurt Airlines ............................................................................................................................................................ 396
AT: No Innovation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 397
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 398
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 399
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 400
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 401
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 402
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 403
AT: Cap and Trade Solves Better .......................................................................................................................................................... 404
AT: Alt. Cause – China .......................................................................................................................................................................... 405
AT: Perm ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 406
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 407
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 408
Net Benefit – Politics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 409

*** Aff Answers *** ............................................................................................................................................................................. 410
AT: CSI AT: Deaths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 411
AT: CSI AT: Deaths .............................................................................................................................................................................. 412
AT: CSI – No Solvency ......................................................................................................................................................................... 413
AT: CSI – No Solvency ......................................................................................................................................................................... 414
AT: CSI – No Solvency ......................................................................................................................................................................... 415
AT: Sewage – No Solvency ................................................................................................................................................................... 416
AT: Sewage – No Solvency ................................................................................................................................................................... 417
AT: Sewage – No Solvency ................................................................................................................................................................... 418
AT: Clean Water SRF – No Solvency ................................................................................................................................................... 419
AT: Sustainable Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................................. 420
AT: Sustainable Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................................. 421
AT: Sustainable Agriculture - Diseases ................................................................................................................................................. 422
AT: Sustainable Agriculture – Pesticides Bad ....................................................................................................................................... 423
AT: Ratify Kyoto Protocal – Hurts Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 424
AT: CTBT – No Solvency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 425
AT: CTBT – No Solvency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 426
AT: Efficiency – Prem Solves ............................................................................................................................................................... 427
AT: PhytoPlankton – Iron  Warming ................................................................................................................................................. 428
AT: Phytoplankton – Iron  Loss of Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................ 429
AT: R&D – Support Not Key ................................................................................................................................................................ 430
AT: R&D – MP Bad .............................................................................................................................................................................. 431
AT: R&D – No Solvency ....................................................................................................................................................................... 432
AT: R&D – No Solvency ....................................................................................................................................................................... 433
AT: R&D – Perm ................................................................................................................................................................................... 434
AT: R&D – Tax Break........................................................................................................................................................................... 435
AT: Food – Farm Land Turn ................................................................................................................................................................. 436
AT: Food – Warming Turn .................................................................................................................................................................... 437
AT: Food – Economy Turn .................................................................................................................................................................... 438
AT: Water Privitization – It’s Bad ......................................................................................................................................................... 439
AT: Privitization – Don’t solve Rights .................................................................................................................................................. 440
AT: Privitization – Don’t Solve Disease ................................................................................................................................................ 441
AT: Hybrid Cars .................................................................................................................................................................................... 442
AT: Carbon Tax – No Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................ 443
AT: Carbon Tax – Hurts Econ ............................................................................................................................................................... 444
AT: Carbon Tax – Hurts Econ ............................................................................................................................................................... 445
AT: Carbon Tax – Hurts Economy ........................................................................................................................................................ 446
AT: Carbon Tax – No Innovation .......................................................................................................................................................... 447
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                9/448
AT: Carbon Tax – Kills Airline Industry ............................................................................................................................................... 448
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             10/448


                                                     NOTES ON THE FILE

This is a lovely file called an advantage counterplan file, hence the title at the top of the first page and the header.

I’ll make a brief explanation of how to use this file in a debate round for those of you who don’t know how this would work. Most of
these counterplans are very specific to certain advantages that an affirmative might claim, such as solving the recession. Now, what
you may be thinking is “what if the counterplan I choose doesn’t solve for all of their advantages?” Well, what you will do is you will
throw an extra plank into the counterplan. Let me explain…

Suppose you hit an affirmative that gives a funding increase to the federal prison system for health care, and let’s assume their
advantages are the human rights, soft power, and disease. As you look through this file, you’ll notice that there might not be a
counterplan that solves for all of there advantages, and in fact, let’s say you’re looking specifically at the Ghitmo counterplan, which
you see solves for the first two of their advantages, but not disease, however, satellites counterplan does solve for disease, but not the
other two advantages. What you could do is you could COMBINE the two counterplans. How this would work, is you would start
with your basic Ghitmo counterplan text: The United States federal government should end the use of the Guantánamo Bay military
base as a detention facility Then, you would add the counterplan text for satellites: 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. Then you combine them into one
overall counterplan: The United States Federal Government should end the use of the Guantánamo Bay military base as a
detention facility and 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. Now
you have a winning counterplan (although it’s a little long). But! Make sure of a couple of things before you read it. Make sure that a)
you read the evidence for BOTH counterplans, and b) before you read it, make sure that the two or more parts of the counterplan
aren’t contradictory.

The next page will have a list of all of the advantages that we have counterplans for, and under the name of each advantage will be a
list of the counterplans in the file that solve that particular advantage (in the order of which one solves best).

MORE IMPORTANTLY, there is one major problem with this type of counterplan: the perm solves 100%. Then you might ask, how
can you win? Simple. You read a disadvantage to the plan that doesn’t link to the counterplan. Every round that I have won on this
type of counterplan, the only answer I have given to the perm is that: “the perm still links to the disad”. The question then becomes,
what disad?

Luckily, there are two sister disads to these counterplans that I would read. The key thing with these disads is the link is based off of
the plan providing a social service, which the counterplan doesn’t do. These disads are the illegal immigration disad and the military
recruitment disad (they’re explained in their respective files)

Enjoy!
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             11/448


                                                  ADVANTAGE MAP 1/4

(in no particular order) (also, note that not everything that every CP solves for is listed here, these are just the major advantages)
(the highlighted are the ones that DON’T link to the military tradeoff or immigration disadvantages so only read those if those are
your net benefits)

Competetiveness
Chem Industry Tax Credits CP
Cluster CP
Broadband Franchising CP
Carbon Tax CP
Education CP
R&D CP
Columbian Free Trade CP
Hybrid Cars CP
Nanomedicine CP

Power Grid Reliability (Blackouts)
Efficiency CP

Hegemony
Offshore Balancing CP
        Soft Power
        Ghitmo CP
        CRC CP
        Foreign Aid CP
        Ratify Kyoto Protocol CP
        Pressure Israel CP

         Hard Power
         F-22 CP
         Broadband CP

Oil Dependence/Peak Oil
ANWR CP
CAFÉ Standards CP
R&D CP
Public Transportation CP

Airline Industry (oil prices)
Close the Loophole CP ??? (maybe, if the case is about oil prices)

Nuclear Proliferation/Nuclear Leadership
Pressure Israel CP
Comprehensive Test Ban Treay CP
Offshore Balancing CP

Global Warming/Emissions Reduction
Phytoplankton CP (unpredictability earns it some points)
Geopolymetric Cement
Carbon Tax CP
Sustainable Agriculture CP (probably doesn’t work against biofuels cases though)
Hybrid Cars CP
Efficiency CP
Public Transportation CP
R&D CP
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                            Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                  12/448


                                              ADVANTAGE MAP 2/4

Free Trade Good
Columbia Free Trade CP

EU Relations
R&D CP

Contain Hugo Chavez
Columbia Free Trade CP

Food Prices and Food Security
Bio-fortification CP
Fund CGIAR CP
Ban Biofuel Subsidies CP

Air Pollution (Acid Rain)
Clear the Skies Initiative CP
Efficiency CP

Hurricanes
Fund Fema CP

Water Polution
Clean Water SRF CP
Sewage Cap and Trade CP

Biodiversity and Ecology (Note: There might not be a counterplan for the specific species they claim to save)
Clear the Skies Initiative CP
Phytoplankton CP
Sewage Cap and Trade CP

Innovation/Technology Leadership
R&D CP

Poverty
Ban Food Aid CP
Water Privatization CP
Efficiency CP

Water Access/Water Wars
Water Privatization CP
ANWR CP

States Rights (Federalism Good)
Department of Education CP

Terrorism
Ghitmo CP
Legalize Drugs CP
Offshore Balancing CP
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                     13/448


                               ADVANTAGE MAP 3/4

Disease
Satellite CP
WHO CP

Tuberculosis
Ultraviolet Light CP

Heteronormitivity
ENDA CP

Felon Voting Rights
Prisoner Transfer CP

Child Rights
CRC CP

Racism
Legacies CP

Nanotech Development
Nanomedicine CP

Freedom of Speech
Broadband CP

Democracy
Conference CP
Ban the Electoral College CP
Columbia Free Trade CP

Prison Rape
Conjugal Visits CP

Readiness
Readiness CP

Space Militarization
NASA CP??????

Human Rights
CEDAW CP
Death Penalty CP
Ghitmo CP
CRC CP

Patriarchy
CEDAW CP

Global Poverty
Global Poverty CP
WHO CP

Natives
Gaming CP
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                             14/448


                                       ADVANTAGE MAP 4/4

Space Colonization/Space Exploration
NASA CP
Mine the Moon CP

Economy
Cluster Groups CP
Small Businesses CP
Micro Loans CP
Student Loans CP
Reuniting Families CP
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                      15/448


                                           COUNTERPLAN TEXTS PAGE

(This is just a blank page to write your counterplan texts on)
(P.S. Be sure to use pencil, so that you can erase it)


Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should ___________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                             16/448


                       *** STUDENT LOANS COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             17/448

                                                  STUDENT LOANS 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should fully repay and thus cancel nearly all debt from student based loans in
the United States.

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Student debt forgiveness would boost the economy
Huliq June 11th ‘9 “Forgive Student Loan Debt Asks For Consolidation Bailout “ News
http://www.huliq.com/3478/82125/forgive-student-loan-debt
More and more people, faced with massive debt from student loans and the urgent need for student loan debt consolidation, are
proposing that the government forgive student loan debt in order to help out the average consumer and thereby give a strong boost the
the Nation's economy. I think it's a very good idea to forgive student loan debt, and the government ought to consider this issue with
student loans very seriously. As a Ph.D. student working on my dissertation, I have spent now 15 years in college and grad school.
During that time I have amassed over 100,000 dollars in student loan debt. I am not alone. It is very common for individuals,
particularly those who attend graduate school to rack up a massive amount of debt. What we typically do is consolidate that debt so
that monthly payments are as slim as possible. But we are still burdened by the crushing costs of our debt. What we need is student
loan debt forgiveness. That's what the Forgive Student Loan Debt has started at www.forgivestudentloandebt.com, where 193,500
members want the government to spend $550-$600 billion necessary 2 completely cancel all student debt. The issue of forgiving the
debt of student loans has in fact become far more pressing. Because of the horrible nature of our economy debt consolidation has
become rare. Fewer and fewer companies are consolidating student loan debt, and the consolidations offered are doing less for the
person in debt. This is rather crippling. Because of the absurdly high cost of a college education in the United States, the vast majority
of students must take out many loans of very large amounts. Their only hope of avoiding financial ruin when they finish school is to
get a very good debt consolidation deal. This is were it would make sense to forgive student loan debt and make it beneficial. If debt
consolidation for student loans continues to wane, more and more people will go bankrupt, lose homes, and face utter financial ruin.
This is not merely a matter of pain and suffering for these unfortunate individuals either. The more individuals that fail financially, the
more the country fails. And since the vast majority of Americans now attend some form of college and the vast majority of college
students have to take out a very high amount of loans, it follows that a large number of people are effected by this.In light of all of
this, I submit that it is for the economic good of the nation that Forgiveness of student loan debt is a key element in saving the
economic fate of the nation. With Consolidation at a low point, student loan forgiveness is essential to helping your average person
who may buy a home, a car, or luxury goods on the market. Student Loan forgiveness will empower the average buyer to purchase,
the economy will be on its way to healing. Therefore, it does make sense to forgive student loan debt as part of the bailouts that are
occurring to help the economy.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            18/448


                                               SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Cancelling student loan debt would stimulate economic growth
Huffington Post, February ‘9 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-chattman/forgiving-student-loan-de_b_164103.html “Forgiving
Student Loan Debt Would Stimulate Economy”
Robert Applebaum, an attorney from New York, thinks so and has an idea on how to help many in his shoes -- and trust me, there
are many -- while stimulating the economy at the same time. The 35 year old started up an online campaign this month to bail out
those "hard-working, educated middle class" suffocating in college loan debt on Facebook. He formed the group "Cancel Student
Loan Debt to Stimulate the Economy" because he believes forgiving student loan debt for those making under $150,000 annually
would help boost the economy from "the bottom up.""I struggle to pay my rent and bills and have never defaulted on my student
loans," he said Feb. 4. But I also don't spend money on consumer goods anymore -- not only because I can't afford them, but
because I'm afraid the situation will only get worse..."He continued, "One-time tax rebates and meager tax cuts do nothing to
stimulate the economy. A recession is as much a psychological phenomenon as anything else. Knowing I'd have an extra $500 per
month in my pocket will get me spending again. Multiply that across the country and the economy will start to move
again."Applebaum has been fighting off his own loans since 1998, and owes more now than he did when he graduated. He said he
decided to form a group on the social networking powerhouse because he's sick of watching people like him pay the price for
choosing to go for higher education and advanced degrees."I was watching the news about not only the current economic stimulus
package but the second bailout for the financial institutions that's coming down the pike (in addition to the $700 billion TARP
bailout). News about lavish vacations, exorbitant bonuses and the redecorating of the Chairman of Merrill Lynch's office
absolutely disgusted me," recalled Applebaum, who has seen his group surpass 3,000 in just a few days after he formed it."It
occurred to me that these guys are responsible for the mess yet they have their hands out asking the taxpayers for billions of dollars
[while] continuing to spend money like drunken poets on payday," he added.Applebaum's not alone in his thought processes.
Fellow Facebooker Kevin Bartoy, a 35-year-old archeologist from Old Hickory, TN started up a similar group a few weeks ago
because he and his wife have been drowning in student loan debt as well. Applebaum contacted Bartoy, and the two have since
banded together, running their respective groups as "sisters." The goal is to gain enough traction it'll grab President Obama's
attention. The creation of this petition will surely help." This would truly allow the educated lower and middle classes to create a
solid foundation for a new economy," Bartoy said. "It is frustrating to be a society in which you need the educational credentials to
succeed, but to get them, you have to put yourself in so much debt that you lose your independence in the process."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                              19/448


                       *** LEGALIZE DRUGS COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               20/448


                                                  LEGALIZE DRUGS 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should permanently abolish its prohibition on illegal drugs

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Legalizing drugs solves terrorist WMDs
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
Some terrorism costs relatively little to accomplish. Carrying out the September 11 attacks in the United States may have cost only
a few million dollars.(2) However, many of the most feared forms of terrorism, the so-called weapons of mass destruction -
biological, chemical and nuclear - can be very expensive to produce and deliver. For example, Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, put
about 30 people and an estimated $30m into producing the chemical sarin that was released in the Tokyo subway in 1995.(3)
Profits from the production and sale of prohibited drugs can therefore be useful to terrorists planning these more expensive forms
of terrorism. Attempts by governments to limit the financing of terrorist organizations generally focus on two main themes:           *
eliminating sources of financing, and * reducing the capacity of terrorists to keep and move and launder money about the globe.
This paper deals principally with the first theme - eliminating the sources of financing for terrorists. Specifically, it deals with drug
prohibition as an important source of money for terrorism. It explains how drug prohibition - not simply the drug trade, but rather
the drug trade under a system of prohibition - has become a major, if not the major, source of funding for many terrorist groups. It
argues further that focusing on traditional measures to suppress the drug trade, including law enforcement, crop substitution and
measures to reduce the movement and laundering of drug money, will fail to significantly reduce the flow of drug money to
terrorists. The analysis concludes that because these other methods of attacking the drug trade are ineffective - and cannot be
made to be effective - governments must reconsider and, ultimately, dismantle prohibitionist drug laws. Refusing to address the
role of prohibition in financing terrorism will enable terrorist groups to continue to build the resources they need to engage in even
more extensive acts of terrorism than we have witnessed to date.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               21/448


                                               SOLVENCY – TERRORISM

Absence prohibition—terrorists no longer have money
Eugene Oscapella, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy ‘01“The Links Between Drug Prohibition and Terrorism”
http://www.cfdp.ca/terror.htm
   * 1. Laws prohibiting drugs ("drug prohibition") have enriched criminal organizations around the world by creating an
enormously lucrative illegal market ("black market") in drugs. Prohibition has also often helped finance terrorist groups. In 1994,
Reuters News Agency quoted Interpol's chief drugs officer, Iqbal Hussain Rizvi, as saying that "Drugs have taken over as the chief
means of financing terrorism."62 (However, Reuters did not report whether Mr. Rizvi gave a source for his estimate, so it cannot
be said with certainty that it is the main source of financing, although it is clearly a major source for many groups.) Terrorists and
criminals, sometimes both made wealthier by prohibition, may also join forces if their interests coincide, creating an even greater
threat to the countries they target.
Remember that it is drug prohibition that generates huge profits for these groups. Without prohibition, the drug trade could not
finance terrorism to any significant degree, since profits from the legal sale of drugs would be a small fraction of the profits that
are generated in the black market created by prohibition. Politicians and policymakers typically don't appear to understand -- or
they deliberately choose to ignore -- this central point about how prohibition creates such a lucrative black market in drugs. They
often simply make the claim that the drug trade, or drug use, supports terrorism, without further explanation. They completely
ignore the role of the laws they enact to prohibit drugs in making the selling of drugs so profitable to terrorists in the first place.
The following are examples of this blindness:

 Conventional policy makers overlook legalizing
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
The media, police, policymakers and politicians often describe the problem simply as the financing of terrorism through the drug
trade. Their analysis stops there. They ignore the role of drug prohibition. Prohibition alone is what makes the drug trade so
profitable for terrorists.

We access the best internal link to international security
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
Drug trafficking has, throughout this century, been an international enterprise and hence an international problem. However, the
ever increasing scale of the traffic, the apparent efficiency of organization and sophistication, the vast sums of money involved and
the increasing links with transnational organized crime and terrorist organizations constitute a threat which is increasingly serious
in both its nature and extent. Illicit drug trafficking now threatens peace and security at a national and international level. It affects
the sovereignty of some states, the right of self-determination and democratic government, economic, social and political stability
and the enjoyment of human rights.(21)
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            22/448


                                      AT: THIS COUNTERPLAN IS STUPID

That logic justifies 9/11
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
The events of September 11 have made it abundantly clear that we must do more than we have been doing to address the causes
and mechanisms of terrorism. Relying on the same ideas, showing the same reluctance to look at the real impact of drug
prohibition, will only continue to facilitate the terrorism that has rocked countries in other continents, and that may have just begun
to rock our own.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                       23/448


                       *** BAILOUT COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             24/448


                                                         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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                   25/448


                       *** GEOPOLYMERIC CEMENT COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       26/448

                                        GEOPOLYMERIC CEMENT 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should offer the necessary incentives to encourage the use of
Geopolymeric cement in the United States.

Counterplan competes though net benefits

That’s key to reducing emissions
Dr. Joseph Davidovits, 1997 “A practical New Way to Reduce Global Warming” June 30, 1
http://www.welcomenews.net/geopolymer.html
One reason that the U.S. has made little progress in meeting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that some new
technologies designed to mitigate the problem have not been afforded the priority that would allow them to compete in the market.
An example is a remarkable cement/concrete technology called geopolymeric cement that can significantly reduce global CO2
(carbon dioxide) emissions, while solving a host of other problems without creating new ones.
Emissions of CO2 from cement production is increasing at a much more rapid rate than all other industrial sources put together.
Few outside of the construction industry are aware that the manufacture of Portland cement based concrete, the material seen
everywhere in buildings and pavements, emits greenhouse gases, especially CO2. By the year 2000, almost 10% of all global
greenhouse gases will come from new construction with Portland cement based concrete. As countries develop, they build
infrastructure and housing that utilize abundant quantities of concrete. As global development increases, Portland cement
manufacturers can be expected to exert an increasingly greater influence on governmental policies regulating CO2 emissions, a
situation that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. By the year 2015, global CO2 emissions from the manufacture of Portland
cement is expected to be 3,500 million tonnes annually. This vast amount is equivalent to Europe’s total current annual CO2
emissions. This equals 67% of present annual U.S. CO2 emissions (5,160 million tonnes). Clearly, these figures show the dramatic
benefit that would be realized if all countries converted to geopolymeric concrete.
Manufacturing geopolymeric cement generates five (5) times less CO2 than does the manufacture of Portland cement. Any country
that converts to the manufacture of geopolymeric cement/concrete would eliminate 80% of the emissions generated from the
cement and aggregates industries. Newly developing countries that elect to utilize geopolymeric concrete could increase their
construction rate five times without increasing present CO2 emissions.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             27/448


                                                SOLVENCY – WARMING

Switch from Portland to Geopolymetric is key to solve warming
Dr. Joseph Davidovits, 1997 “A practical New Way to Reduce Global Warming” June 30, 1
http://www.welcomenews.net/geopolymer.html
Even if a technology is clearly superior, it is very difficult for it to displace an entrenched technology. Thus special priority should
be given to proven technologies that can dramatically mitigate the tragedies resulting from the severe floods and droughts expected
from global warming. Priority status is especially needed in this case because the cement industry has been unwilling to embrace
geopolymeric concrete or any other concrete that might threaten to displace Portland cement/concrete. While President Clinton is
probably so far unaware of this matter, the replacement of Portland cement with geopolymeric cement will substantially reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions, and should be among the measures expected to be recommended by him.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               28/448


                                 *** BIOFORTIFICATION COUNTERPLAN ***

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

Counterplan competes through net benefits

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                29/448


                                             SOLVENCY – FOOD IMPACTS

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                             30/448


                       *** DEATH PENALTY COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         31/448

                                                DEATH PENALTY 1NC

The United States Federal Government should establish polices that prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders, prohibit
execution of the mentally impaired and discourage discrimination in application of the death penalty.

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Capital punishment reform promotes human rights abroad
Amnesty International USA. Human Rights Policy Paper (February, 1988)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/Amnesty_USHumanRightsPol.html
There is an adverse relationship between capital punishment and existing international human rights standards. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punish meet." In addition, imposition of the death penalty in the United States and other countries which still permit capital
punishment results in arbitrary and discriminatory executions. The United States has a responsibility to review the existence of
discrimination in the administration and application of capital sentencing. The United States can promote human rights abroad by
demonstrating its commitment to protecting human rights at home.
The United States is one of the member states of the United Nations. It shows little sign, however, of joining the world trend
toward abolishing state-sanctioned killing. Therefore, the United States contravenes the United Nations declaration that "in order
to guarantee fully the right to life, provided for in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," member states should
progressively seek to restrict "the number of offenses for which capital punishment may be imposed with a view to the desirability
of abolishing this punishment in all countries."
Amnesty International USA calls on U.S. Government officials to commit themselves to work toward abolition of the death
penalty in the United States and specifically to:
* Prohibit the execution of juvenile offenders, a practice which contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights.
* Prohibit execution of the mentally impaired, a practice which contravenes the guidelines of the United Nations Economic and
Social Council.
* Eliminate discrimination in application of the death penalty.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            32/448


                                           SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS

Reforming the death penalty spills over—legitimizes human rights treaties abroad
Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, 2002 “The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law”
Death Penalty Information Center. Google Scholar.

The U.S. is already a party to a number of fundamental human rights treaties that impact capital punishment. To some extent, the
U.S. has isolated itself from the most direct effects of these treaties through reservations or by invoking domestic law. But the U.S.
is committed to the underlying human rights principles of these treaties and these instruments can serve as a starting point for
reforming and restricting the death penalty from a human rights perspective. The issue of innocence has particular ramifications
for the U.S. death penalty. The impact of over 100 people who faced execution walking free has raised moral, legal, and
constitutional questions in the U.S. It also provides an opening for those who approach the death penalty from a human rights
perspective: every country committed to the preservation of human rights will want to avoid any unnecessary measures which
threaten innocent life. While that ultimate question is being settled, there is ample room for reform and restrictions on the death
penalty. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have demonstrated an openness to the opinion of other nations in evaluating the
evolving standards of decency that will ultimately determine the boundaries of acceptable punishment. Within this framework,
many perspectives should be welcome.

The U.S. needs to revise capital punishment in order to promote human rights
Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, 2002 “The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law”
Death Penalty Information Center. Google Scholar.

The thesis of this paper is that international law and an analysis based on human rights are useful means to address the death
penalty in the U.S. Although the U.S. uses other terms in protecting basic rights, and has carefully insulated itself from key human
rights treaties regarding the death penalty, there is now a new openness to discuss the problems of capital punishment.
Particularly around the issue of innocence, criticism of the death penalty within the U.S. and the concerns of the international
human rights community stand on common ground. If the U.S. is headed toward the abolition of the death penalty, the next few
years will be crucial in determining whether that process is rapid, or drawn out over many decades.

The death penalty even damages specific policies—like extraditing
Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, 2002 “The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law”
Death Penalty Information Center. Google Scholar.

Challenging the death penalty is not seen solely as an internal matter among nations. Many European countries, along with
Canada, Mexico, and South Africa, have resisted extraditing persons to countries like the United States unless there are assurances
that the death penalty will not be sought. The Council of Europe has threatened to revoke the U.S.'s observer status unless it takes
action on the death penalty.18 Mexico has recently begun a program to provide legal assistance to its foreign nationals facing the
death penalty in the U.S. As discussed more fully below, these Mexican citizens were usually not afforded their rights under the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This same violation led Paraguay and Germany to pursue relief at the International
Court of Justice in the Hague for their foreign nationals facing execution in the U.S.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                         33/448


                       *** SATALITES COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          34/448


                                                      SATALITES 1NC

CP 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

Counterplan competes through net benefits

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).
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          35/448


                                                SOLVENCY – DISEASE

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.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              36/448


                                                    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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                           Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                 37/448


                       *** ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        38/448

                                            ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should allocate the necessary resources to increase the use of Ultraviolet light
sterilization systems in hospitals.

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Sterilization of hospital air via UVC is key to reducing the spread of TB
   David Gutierrez -- staff writer 6/9 “UV Lights in Hospitals Could Reduce Spread of TB by 70 Percent”
   http://www.naturalnews.com/026414_hospitals_hospital_disease.html

   (NaturalNews) Sterilization of hospital air with ultraviolet light could reduce the internal spread of tuberculosis (TB) by as
   much as 70 percent, according to a study published in the journal PLoS Medicine.TB is a highly contagious respiratory disease
   that infects nearly nine million people around the world each year, killing two million of them. The disease is an increasing
   public health threat as antibiotic resistant strains continue to become more common."When people are crowded together in a
   hospital waiting room, it may take just one cough to infect several vulnerable patients, said researcher Rod Escombe of
   Imperial College London. "Our previous research showed that opening windows in a room is a simple way to reduce the risk of
   tuberculosis transmission, but this is climate-dependent -- you can't open the windows in the intensive care ward of a Siberian
   hospital."Ultraviolet-C (UVC) light is already commonly used to sterilize empty operating rooms or ambulances. In prior
   studies, UVC light has proven effective at killing both normal and drug-resistant strains of TB bacteria by damaging their
   DNA.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             39/448


                                                       SOLVENCY – TB

Ultraviolet lights reduce the spread of TB
David Gutierrez -- staff writer 6/9 “UV Lights in Hospitals Could Reduce Spread of TB by 70 Percent”
http://www.naturalnews.com/026414_hospitals_hospital_disease.html

The simple intervention of using ultraviolet (UV) lights near the ceiling together with fans may reduce the spread of tuberculosis
(TB) in hospitals, and air treatment with negative ionizers may also be effective, according to research published in PLoS
Medicine.TB transmission in overcrowded health care facilities is an important public health problem, especially in low resource
settings, populations affected by HIV, and locations where drug-resistant TB occurs frequently.

Hospitals are the breading ground for TB
Associated Press, Mar 17, 2009 “UV light can zap TB in hospitals: study”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imda_bGKG4Dy6h1MCv6NuDMcxZeA

Sneezing or coughing sprays TB bacteria into the air in tiny droplets that can infect visitors, health care workers and other patients.
"When people are crowded together in a hospital waiting room, it may take just one cough to infect several vulnerable patients,"
said Roderick Escombe, a researcher at Imperial College London and lead author of the study.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                   40/448


                   *** DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        41/448

                                         DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should permanently abolish the department of education.

Eliminating the DOE solves states rights
Cato “Cato Handbook for Congress” 2003 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/index.html
The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to be involved in education. Eliminating the
department on those grounds would help to reestablish the original understanding of the enumerated powers of the federal
government.

Education is naturally a state right
Cato “Cato Handbook for Congress” 2003 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/index.html
James Madison, who proclaimed that the powers of the federal govern- ment should be few and enumerated, would be shocked at
what the president and Congress are doing today in relation to an aspect of family life that was never intended to come under the
control of Congress, the White House, or any federal agency. Congress should take the enlightened view, consistent with that of
the nation’s Founders, and draw a line in the sand that won’t be crossed. Education is a matter reserved to the states, period
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                    42/448


                       *** ENDA COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       43/448


                                                         ENDA 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The counterplan competes through net benefits

ENDA is an extraordinary way to advance LGBT rights
Equality Texas, October 19, 2007. http://eqfed.org/eqtx/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=16274202

"I have never wavered from my conviction that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) must include protections based
upon sexual orientation and gender identity. It is gratifying to see that conviction shared by so many people in all parts of the
country. I will be working tirelessly to secure the votes necessary to pass a gender identity-inclusive ENDA bill and urge all who
share this goal to make their voices heard. This extraordinary opportunity to advance LGBT rights in America is proud evidence of
democracy in which the people decide what is possible."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             44/448


                                      SOLVENCY – HETERONORMITIVITY

ENDA is significant LGBT civil rights legislation
Kenneth A. Kovach and Peter E. Millspaugh. 1996 “Employment Nondiscrimination Act: On The Cutting Edge Of Public
Policy” Volume 39, Issue 4, July-August 1996, Pages 65-73
Influential and outspoken supporters such as Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) place the ENDA bill in the category of civil
rights legislation The contention of this school of thought is that sexual orientation should be removed as a basis for job
discrimination in the same way that race, gender, religion, national origin, age, and disabilities have been dealt with in previous
fed- eral legislation. Most supporters of ENDA deny any connec- tion between performance on the job and sexual orientation.
They point to the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise, that sexual orientation relates to job performance in any way.
Consequently, they argue, consideration of one’s sexual orientation in employment-related decisions should be outlawed to
prevent potentially nega- tive outcomes that can occur when it is part of the decision.

ENDA is a major step in LGBT rights
Caleb Groos 6/25 2009 “Federal LGBT Discrimination Law Coming? ENDA: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Re-
Introduced” http://blogs.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1892

Yesterday, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was introduced in the US House of Representatives. It would
prohibit employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity in a wide variety of employment decisions.
Though similar legislation has been repeatedly introduced without success, increased support this year means businesses would be
smart to prepare for compliance. Representative Barney Frank, along with others, has introduced ENDA just about every year
since 1994. This year, however, he has 118 original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This year's bill (like some, but not all
of its predecessors) also includes protections for trans-gender individuals as well as lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Currently,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 puts race, gender, religion and national origin off limits as far as employment decisions
including hiring, firing, promotions, demotions, reductions in hours, along with many others. ENDA would provide the same
protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. We also currently have federal protections against some
age discrimination, as well as discrimination against those with disabilities, but those are provided outside of Title VII.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, on the other hand, is so far left to state and local rules. As stated in
Representative Frank's press release, it is still legal in 30 states to fire someone simply for being gay. 38 states allow it based on
gender identity. The bill introduced yesterday would end this. As with the protections Title VII gives other groups, it would ban
employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

ENDA key to solve discrimination—state laws don’t cover
Lauren McGlothlin 6/24 “Employment Discrimination against LGBT Workers Shows Need for Employment Non-Discrimination
Act” http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/459-enda.html

Although employment laws intended to protect people from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender
identity are on the books in local communities and states around the country, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation reports
that more than 3 in 5 U.S. citizens live in areas that do not have these laws. Only 12 states and the District of Columbia have banned
employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Eight states have outlawed employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many businesses are finding that it is becoming more and more important to have policies
prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in order to remain competitive. The HRC Foundation found
that 85 percent of Fortune 500 businesses now have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, up from 51 percent in
2000. Thirty-five percent of Fortune 500 businesses have non-discrimination policies that include gender identity or expression. In
2000, only three Fortune 500 companies had this policy. Today, the House of Representatives re-introduced the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in
all states across the country. ENDA would extend the same federal employment discrimination protections currently given to race,
religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         45/448


                                       ENDA WILL PASS (CP POPULAR)

Bill will pass in the status squo
Caleb Groos 6/25 2009 “Federal LGBT Discrimination Law Coming? ENDA: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Re-
Introduced” http://blogs.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1892

With over 100 co-sponsors, this year's bill has much more momentum than in any of the previous years. For all employers whose
states don't already have similar rules on the books, this could mean reviewing and updating all anti-discrimination, hiring, and
employment policies to make sure they accord LGBT employees all the protections in place for workers of different genders,
races, religions and national origins.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                           Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                 46/448


                       *** PRISONER TRANSFER COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           47/448

                                              PRISONER TRANSER 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should make the necessary arrangements for the transfer of all willing
prisoners to federal prisons in either Vermont or Maine.

Solvency:

1st Voting rights depends on location
Paul Tiger 6/25 “Felons can vote” http://denver.yourhub.com/Longmont/Stories/Voices/Columns/Story~630064.aspx
The most important one that I find bothersome is former felons who are absolutely positive that they cannot vote. States have their
own laws, separate constitutions, and election rules, and they are not the same. When one moves to a different state, the laws of the
old state don't follow them. A person convicted of a felony in Kentucky may only vote again if they receive a pardon from the
governor. If that person moves to Colorado, they may register to vote and exercise their rights when the time comes. No special
permissions or paperwork is needed. When the sentence of a felony conviction in Colorado comes to end, the felon may resume
being a voter, or begin if they were not registered before. The sentence and obligation to the court is over and rights are restored.

2nd Felons can vote in Vermont and Maine prisons
Washington Times January 28, 2006 “Vermont, Maine allow felon votes”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/28/20060128-104343-6528r/
Felons in Vermont and Maine, including those behind bars, have never been denied the right to vote since those states were founded
more than 180 years ago, but neither state keeps data on the number of inmates who vote. "In Vermont, the criteria for voting is
based on the state constitution," and there is nothing in there to prevent prisoners from voting, said William Dalton, Vermont's deputy
secretary of state. Long recognized as one of the most liberal states in the nation, Vermont even allows incarcerated criminals to run
for political office. Mr. Dalton said that happened in 2002, when a man serving time in a federal prison for tax fraud ran against Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                   48/448


                       *** CRC COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             49/448


                                                             CRC 1NC

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

Ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Child reaffirms the U.S. image as child rights promoter
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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            50/448


                                            SOLVENCY – CHILD RIGHTS

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              51/448


                                              SOLVENCY – 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.

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              52/448


                                             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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                         53/448


                                      SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP

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


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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         54/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               55/448


                                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             56/448


                                               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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          57/448


                                                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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                             58/448


                                                     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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                           59/448


                                                           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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            60/448


                                                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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             61/448


                                                  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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        62/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                        63/448


                       *** LEGACIES COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                64/448


                                                         LEGACIES 1NC

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

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                            65/448


                                                               SOLVENCY – RACISM

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                           66/448


                       *** FOREIGN AID COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         67/448

                                                    FOREIGN AID 1NC

Counterplan text: The United States federal government should pass the Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 and
substantially increase all foreign aid to other countries

Foreign aid fails now – reform is key
Robert V. Williams (Staff writer) 2009: Online Extra: Mission possible: fixing foreign aid. http://www.thestate.com/editorial-
columns/story/863135.html
Today, poverty reduction is not the primary goal of U.S. foreign assistance. There are 33 different goals, 75 priority areas and 247
directives, executed by at least 12 departments; 25 different agencies administer foreign assistance programs. That translates to 48
years of agencies multiplying, duplicating and sometimes failing to make serious progress toward a better, safer world.
When targeted and given the proper resources, foreign aid can work. However, it will take more than money to fight extreme poverty
and hunger: It will take better policies. Most mission volunteers understand that political, social and economic systems contribute to
hunger and poverty. Countries and communities face crushing debt burdens, unfair trade rules, poor governance and disruptive
conflicts as they try to improve the well-being of their citizens. U.S. development policy cannot be only about emergency food aid, but
must also address these other constraints to improved living standards. With these decisions scattered across nearly 60 government
offices, a holistic plan for development is nearly impossible.
Foreign aid needs to be fixed. Three congressmen from South Carolina have a chance to make that happen. Reps. Gresham Barrett,
Bob Inglis and Joe Wilson all sit on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and can help move foreign assistance into the 21st century
by supporting, H.R. 2139, the “Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009.” This bipartisan bill calls for a comprehensive
strategy for global development and requires the president to develop and implement a rigorous system for monitoring and evaluating
foreign assistance, including reporting results to taxpayers via the Internet. The bill deserves swift, decisive support from South
Carolina’s U.S. representatives.


Foreign aid solves soft power
David Kampf (directed communications for the United States Agency for International Development and President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief in Rwanda) 2009: In Defense of Aid. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6274
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with President George W. Bush's tough rhetoric and foreign policy, tarnished America's
image abroad. Providing short-term relief followed by long-term investments can improve the country's favorability. For better or
worse, money talks. The Pew Global Attitudes Project found that Indonesians viewed the United States more positively after
Washington responded generously to the tsunami in December 2004 (U.S. favorability grew from 15% in 2003 to 38% in 2005 but
decreased slightly in 2006 and 2007).
Aid is not a vanity exercise. An unpopular government or leader complicates diplomatic efforts and compromises America's ability to
lead. If the United States is respected around the world and seen as a defender of human rights and open societies, diplomacy becomes
easier. Foreign assistance that is well communicated to international audiences will help the U.S. achieve its own goals.
Aid programs can also improve the business environment in developing countries by reducing corruption, building infrastructure,
establishing rule of law, and fostering good governance. This not only allows local business to thrive, but also enables American
businesses to expand in a globalized world and creates valuable export markets. While traveling in Accra, Ghana over the weekend,
Obama emphasized that it is in America's interest to support sustainable democratic governments, limit corruption, train a skilled
workforce, and promote trade and investment because when "people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, new
markets will open for our own goods."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         68/448


                                                EXT - NEEDS REFORM

Foreign aid reform needed
David Kampf (directed communications for the United States Agency for International Development and President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief in Rwanda) 2009: In Defense of Aid. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6274
Over the years, the delivery of U.S. foreign assistance has been militarized and fragmented across over 20 different agencies.
Development programs lack clear strategy and attainable goals. There is growing recognition that America's aid programs are out of
date and need to be reformed. From Gates to members of Congress, many agree that changes should be made to ensure the money
reaches those most in need and achieve U.S. objectives.
In May, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "Development and diplomacy have
to retake their rightful place alongside defense at the heart of American's foreign policy." He pledged to introduce two pieces of
legislation with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), including an initial foreign aid reform bill. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Howard Berman, introduced a bill in April calling for a national strategy for global development. While these actions
demonstrate momentum, leadership from the president is needed to achieve results. The Obama administration faces many competing
political priorities, and reform will take time. But such reform is essential.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            69/448


                                AT: AID DOESN’T WORK/AID EXISTS NOW

Counterplan solves this back – reforming aid is key
David Kampf (directed communications for the United States Agency for International Development and President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief in Rwanda) 2009: In Defense of Aid. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6274
Answering the Critics
Dambisa Moyo writes in Dead Aid that "across the globe the recipients of this aid are worse off; much worse off. Aid has helped make
the poor poorer, and growth slower." Broadly speaking, critics argue that aid is inefficient, distorts markets, creates dependency, and
does not reach the intended recipients. Critics emphasize aid's shortcomings and compare the broad ambition of ending poverty with
the reality.
These critics are right in many respects. There are problems with how foreign assistance is delivered. And aid alone cannot solve all
problems — other aspects of development including trade and business development are crucial. But the conclusions are often wrong.
The critics largely ignore the benefits of aid. Foreign assistance has demonstrated success in improving education and health. Aid
programs helped eradicate smallpox and more recently, over two million people living with HIV/AIDS received antiretroviral
treatment through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (an initiative started by Bush in 2003).Without aid, some countries
would not have the resources to construct roads, provide essential medicines and educate the workforce.
The examples of failure mean that aid should be improved and modernized, not ended. Even William Easterly, the most frequently
cited critic of foreign aid, wrote in his latest book that aid agencies "can do many useful things to meet the desperate needs of the poor
and give them new opportunities."
Over the years, the delivery of U.S. foreign assistance has been militarized and fragmented across over 20 different agencies.
Development programs lack clear strategy and attainable goals. There is growing recognition that America's aid programs are out of
date and need to be reformed. From Gates to members of Congress, many agree that changes should be made to ensure the money
reaches those most in need and achieve U.S. objectives.
In May, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "Development and diplomacy have
to retake their rightful place alongside defense at the heart of American's foreign policy." He pledged to introduce two pieces of
legislation with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), including an initial foreign aid reform bill. The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, Howard Berman, introduced a bill in April calling for a national strategy for global development. While these actions
demonstrate momentum, leadership from the president is needed to achieve results. The Obama administration faces many competing
political priorities, and reform will take time. But such reform is essential.
Polls repeatedly indicate that the American public drastically overestimates that amount of money spent on aid. In reality, aid accounts
for less than one percent of the federal budget. Development needs to be balanced with defense and diplomacy. In conflicts,
development efforts should complement military strategies and diplomatic engagement. In emergency situations and low-income
countries, development programs will strengthen diplomacy and diminish the chance of war. With this in mind, aid is an essential
aspect of America's "smart power" approach to foreign policy.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                     70/448


                       *** BROADBAND FRANCHIZING COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         71/448

                                       BROADBAND FRANCHISING 1NC

Counterplan text: The United States federal government should establish nationwide video and cable franchising authorities,
replacing franchising regulations currently operated by municipalities.

Cutting franchise restrictions allows for rapid deployment of video and broadband services, massively cutting costs, and
increasing broadband penetration
Wallsten 7, director of communications policy studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, (Scott, “Franchise Reform and the
FCC,” April, http://www.heartland.org/publications/infotech%20telecom/article/20783/Franchise_Reform_and_the_FCC.html)
The issue today is that the legacy telephone companies, in particular AT&T and Verizon, are rolling out optical fiber and want to offer
video and lightning-fast broadband service over those lines. In order to offer video they must negotiate franchise agreements with each
municipality. Reform of this process could substantially reduce transaction costs and make it easier to obtain those agreements.
Long Overdue Franchise reform is long overdue. While cities understandably want oversight over some aspects of installing this
infrastructure, such as digging up neighborhood streets, there is no economic rationale for local franchising of video services. The
need to obtain a franchise represents a barrier to entry. Removing that barrier will yield real consumer benefits in the form of
additional broadband competition and additional video competition. Franchise reform is one of few policies (along with moving more
spectrum into the market) almost guaranteed to increase competition. The FCC is now grappling with the sticky question of how to
apply its December order to incumbents. It has requested comments on how the order should apply to existing franchisees (the cable
companies). As a matter of economic efficiency, the key question is how the order affects investment going forward. Thus, if franchise
reforms increase efficiency--and by removing regulations not targeted at a market failure they should--then any reforms should apply
to all firms in the market, regardless of their historic franchise benefits and obligations. Asymmetric Rules Excluding the cable
companies from reforms would perpetuate inefficient asymmetric regulation of the same services. In the early days of broadband,
telecom firms were required to share their networks with competitors, while the cable companies were not. The cable companies were
able to attract customers in part because they faced fewer regulations. Granting franchise relief to telecom firms but not their cable
competitors would represent new asymmetric regulation, this time giving a relative advantage to the telephone companies. To avoid
this inefficiency, any franchise reforms granted to the telephone companies should immediately be granted to the cable operators as
well. Any non-economic factors that might delay cable companies from being able to benefit from franchise reform should not delay
changes that will ease market entry. Franchise reforms should happen immediately, and they should apply to cable companies as soon
as practicably possible. Demand and Supply Franchising also highlights the issue of broadband demand, which gets relatively little
attention. Consumer demand for broadband is, in part, a function of the content available to them. Some countries that are frequently
held up as broadband models, like Japan and France, explicitly allow TV over broadband lines. And if there is one thing Americans
need, it’s more television. The ability to watch TV over broadband increases consumer demand for the service. Franchise regulations,
by making it difficult to offer TV services that way, artificially depress demand for broadband services. Video franchising today has
two negative impacts on broadband investment: It reduces competition by creating an entry barrier, and it suppresses dema nd by
arbitrarily limiting the type of content allowed to flow over the lines. Franchise reforms thus represent an excellent opportunity to
promote broadband investment and adoption in the U.S.

Broadband competition is critical to spur new innovation and global competitiveness
Turner, 9 - research director of Free Press and representative of the No Chokepoints Coalition
(S. Derek, http://www.nochokepoints.org/resources/Free_Press-May2009-Dismantling_Digital_Deregulation.pdf)
Nowhere is this digital mediocrity more evident than in the state of competition in our broadband markets. In the aftermath of the
1996 Act, the average American consumer had access to more than a dozen ISPs; today, our broadband market is a stagnant duopoly.
Nationwide, incumbent phone and cable companies control 97 percent of the fixed-line residential broadband market. When
complementary (and slow and expensive) mobile data connections are factored in, the incumbent phone and cable companies’
nationwide market share stands at 95 percent. This situation is essentially unchanged since 2005, when the FCC took its final step to
destroy the last vestige of the 1996 Act’s competitive framework. 11
As expected, this uncompetitive market has slowed innovation and advancement. Only 4 percent of U.S. homes have broadband
connections with advertised download speeds in excess of 10 Mbps, and many of these are cable modem lines that may rarely reach
these speeds due to the shared and over-subscribed nature of cable infrastructure.12 Prices have slowly and steadily increased, the
precise outcome expected when competition is nowhere to be found. In 2003, the average monthly price for a broadband connection in
the United States was $42.15. This climbed to $44.09 four years later, during a period when incumbents were given substantial
“regulatory relief” that was supposed to lead to lower prices.13
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            72/448


                                             SOLVENCY – BROADBAND
The counterplan is the only way to solve – video services massively increase the incentive to provide affordable broadband
access to low income communities – it increases profits and reduces capital costs
Ford et al 5, George S., Thomas M. Koutsky, Lawrence J. Spiwak, Esq.‡*Chief Economist, *Resident Scholar, *President, Phoenix
Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (“The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of
Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,” September, , accessed via
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=834144#) emphasis in original
Table 1 shows a great deal of variability in service availability depending on the components of the service offering. Under our
benchmark assumptions with broadband only, the two networks serve very few homes, and the networks pass no homes in areas with
median incomes of less than $50,000. Obviously, the “broadband only” option leads to a sizeable “digital divide.” Even at higher
income levels, network coverage is limited for the broadband-only option. As more services enter the firm’s product mix, however,
the role of income as a determinant of availability diminishes. If telephone service is bundled with broadband, then availability rises
sharply across many income groups. Yet, a substantial “digital” divide remains. No home in a Census Block with a median income of
less than $40,000 would have access to the network, and only about half of the homes in Blocks with median incomes in the $70,000
to $80,000 range would have access. The most sizeable impact on network coverage happens when the network provider adds video
services to its product mix. An offering of video and broadband services shrinks the potential for a “digital divide” considerably. In
our simulation, 84% of the lowest-income Census Blocks have access to the multi-service broadband network, and neighborhoods
with median incomes of more than $40,000 have near ubiquitous access (98% or more). A bundle of all three services – voice, data,
and video – does even more to eliminate the potential for a “digital divide.” Homes in the lowest income group have an 88% access
rate, and virtually every Census Block with a median income of $40,000 or more has access. The difference in availability between the
threeservice bundle and a “broadband only” offering is staggering. With a “triple play,” all income groups have very good coverage,
and low-income households have substantially more access than they would have if video services were not offered. The simulation
illustrates clearly the importance and value of bundling video and other services as an antidote for the “digital divide.” A review of the
detailed simulation results indicates that a lack of access to the network when video is provided is driven more by costs than income
(the latter being the sole driver of revenues). The average annual expected net revenues for those homes passed versus those not
passed is only 7% larger ($265 versus $247).40 In contrast, the cost difference between the groups is enormous. Between the two
groups, the average k is $857 in served areas whereas the average k for areas not served is $2685 (a 213% difference).41 Obviously,
cost – and not income – is the primary driver of a lack of access in the simulation. Another interesting statistic from the simulation is
the recovery speed of the upfront investment. If the firm is able to offer all three services over that network, then the firm recoups its
upfront investment in about one-third of the time that it would recoup from a “broadband-only” build. (We note, however, that our
simulation shows that the new entrant still must take several years in many areas to build its network.) Accelerated cost recovery
improves the business case for building a broadband network and substantially reduces the risk of the endeavor.


And, our evidence is comparative – price competition solves access far better than handouts
Crovitz 9, columnist, Wall Street Journal, (L. Gordon, “Congress Approves Broadband to Nowhere,” February 2,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353476246637693.html
More fundamentally, nothing in the legislation would address the key reason that the U.S. lags so far behind other countries. This is
that there is an effective broadband duopoly in the U.S., with most communities able to choose only between one cable company and
one telecom carrier. It's this lack of competition, blessed by national, state and local politicians, that keeps prices up and services
down.
In contrast, most other advanced countries have numerous providers, using many technologies, competing for consumers. A recent
report by the Pew Research Center entitled "Stimulating Broadband: If Obama Builds It, Will They Log On?" concluded that for many
people, the answer is no, often due to high monthly prices. By one estimate, the lowest monthly price per standard unit of millions of
bits per second is nearly $3 in the U.S., versus about 13 cents in Japan and 33 cents in France.
We're told that we now live in an era of more regulation and more government spending, but neither approach is how problems get
solved in technology. Government mandates on how networks should be operated and subsidies administered by USDA aren't going
to ensure broadband access, make connections faster, or lower prices.
What we need to get the U.S. back into the top ranks of wired countries is more competition, not taxpayer handouts. That would be a
real stimulus.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                       73/448


                                                       SOLVENCY – BROADBAND
Counterplan is the ‘silver bullet’ that solves broadband
Ford et al 5, George S., Thomas M. Koutsky, Lawrence J. Spiwak, Esq.‡*Chief Economist, *Resident Scholar, *President, Phoenix
Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (“The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of
Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households,” September, , accessed via
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=834144#) emphasis in original
Instead of extending anti-redlining and build-out requirements to new entrants, public policy can combat the threat of a “digital
divide” and ensure more widespread deployment of advanced communications networks by allowing entrants the freedom to offer
video with a broadband offering. Adding video to the product mix increases the revenue potential of the network, thereby increasing
entry. Expanding the product mix to include video also substantially reduces the payback period on the network investment. A shorter
payback period makes network investment less risky, so the firm will incur a lower cost of capital (e.g., it can borrow at lower interest
rates) and can invest in more network building. Since low-income households subscribe to video service at roughly the same rate as
higher income households,6 the ability of entrants to offer video services substantially improves the financial case for fiber
deployment in lowincome neighborhoods.
Our graphical analysis and simulation of network deployment in the State of Texas shows that a new entrant will pass substantially
more low-income households if that entrant can readily offer video with voice and broadband Internet access services than if its ability
to sell video services is sharply curtailed or delayed.7 In our simulation, video service takes on the role of a “silver bullet” – i.e., when
the network firm can bundle video, the percentage of poverty and minority homes with access to the network rises substantially.
Because we use a number of simplifying assumptions, our simulation results should not be used to assert that a certain level of
penetration is achievable within any particular time period. But our simulation certainly indicates that policies making video
competition more difficult will lead to significantly lower deployment of advanced communications networks in low-income areas
than will pro-entry video policies.8


And, only lowering prices solves broadband access
Washington Post 9, (Cecilia Kang, “Broadband's Cost Gives Non-Subscribers Pause, Poll Finds,” January 22,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103297.html)

Even if high-speed Internet service was available to the entire nation, about one-third of Americans not currently using broadband still
wouldn't because of the expense, according to a report released yesterday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
The report was based on two surveys of 4,254 people last year and illustrates a potential hang-up in President Obama's goal to bring
broadband Internet to rural and other underserved areas: If they build it, it's not clear that people will come.
"There are multiple reasons why people don't have broadband, and the hope is that if you are a policymaker you would take away from this report that a focus on
availability and price will only get you part of the way there," said John Horrigan, an associate director of research at the Pew project and author of the report.
Access to computers and the difficulty of using the technology are also barriers to widespread broadband use, the report said.
Obama has made broadband deployment part of his goal to create 3 million jobs amid a spiraling economy. He also has made building more broadband networks part of
his initiative to "build a 21st century economy" where small businesses in rural areas can compete globally and schoolchildren across the country have access to the
fastest and best Internet technology.
Yet to solve the problems of the nation's digital divide -- the technological, educational and income gap between people in rural and
low-income areas who do not have access to high-speed Internet service and others who do -- may require getting people to use
broadband once they have access, according to the survey.
About 57 percent of the nation uses broadband services, even though 91 percent of homes have access.
As Congress wrangles over details of a stimulus plan that would create jobs through the deployment of broadband networks, public
interest groups are pushing for specific proposals that would reduce prices for users and create programs for training and access.
According to the survey, 13 percent of non-users said they don't use the Internet or e-mail because they can't access broadband. Nine percent of those surveyed said they
find e-mail and the Internet too difficult to use, 7 percent said they are too busy or don't have time, and 4 percent said they don't have access to a computer.
For those with dial-up Internet access, 35 percent said prices for broadband -- which average $34.50 a month -- would have to go
down for them to upgrade to high-speed cable, fiber-optic, or DSL Internet service, according to the survey.
"The problem with price has to do with competition," said Andrew Schwartzman, president of public access group Media Access Project. Schwartzman said that users
are typically forced to choose between two to three options for high-speed Internet service.
The nonprofit group One Economy has urged lawmakers to include provisions in a stimulus plan that would renovate public housing so that all units in a building
would have access to a shared data network, thereby reducing monthly costs per home by several dollars a month.
Rey Ramsey, chief executive of One Economy, said prices of about $10 or less per month is the threshold for greater adoption.
"My biggest concern is that we not only focus on access, but we also focus on affordability and adoption," Ramsey said.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           74/448


                               BROADBAND SOLVES COMPETITIVENESS

Broadband is key to competitiveness
Wagner 9 [Mitch, Executive Editor of Information Weekly, “Internet Faces Threat Of Breaking Apart,” June 11,
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/06/internet_faces.html;jsessionid=YIHLFWMXHUZTIQSNDLRSKHSCJ
UNN2JVN]
Also during the brief time Werbach got to speak, he talked about the U.S. lagging other developed countries in broadband penetration.
Like net neutrality, the U.S. lag in broadband penetration has been widely discussed, but Werbach gave the best explanation I've heard
for why the issue is important.
Werbach argues that broadband penetration is a standard yardstick for competitiveness among nations. The US is unique among major
industrialized nations in that it lacks a national broadband strategy, and it shows.
"Broadband is the platform for an information society," Werbach said. "It's the mechanism for how governments deliver information
services and the mechansim for how people interact." Prosaically, it's the platform for watching video and participating in discussion,
and it's also a platform for business. "Most countries over the past decade have made a conscious decision that broadband is an
important element of their citizenry. The U.S. has been unique in leaving it to the private sector, and government stays out of the
process. By most metrics, the U.S. was a leader in the world on the Internet on dial-up, and now it's a laggard." On the other hand,
Werbach notes, the US has been tremendously successful in the technology industry and in boosting technology startups.

Only a federal commitment to broadband expansion can reinvigorate US competitiveness – builds on the stimulus
Basu 9 [Indrajit Basu is an international correspondent for Government Technology's Digital Communities., “The Push for a Real,
No-Hype National Broadband Strategy,” May 27, Government Technology,
http://www.govtech.com/gt/691095?id=691095&full=1&story_pg=1]
Copps admitted that the government is fully aware that America is falling behind many developing countries in its broadband reach.
"If you go back in the course of our history, we have always managed to figure out that role with active participation of the public
sector and private sector in the early days of building turnpikes, bridges and railroads, rural electricity and basic telecom. The
government has always found a way to do all those things," he said. "Somehow over the course of several years, we got away from
that, but we need to go back in the past, and that's what we are doing now," he added. According to Copps, although the American
government was involved in planning infrastructure for the last eight years, there was no conscious effort to provide a stimulus
because the general feeling was that somehow the magic of the marketplace would get everything done. "But that did not really
happen," he said, "and that's why we find ourselves where we are in the present comparative broadband rankings among the nations of
the world." However, he said, that state of affairs has changed. "We have a new government and we have an American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act that carves out a very active role for the government," Copps said. "This administration is a believer that the
government has a central role to play in promoting infrastructure." "Part of that is the stimulus of the $7.2 billion for broadband. But
that is short-term stimulus. I call that the down payment," Copps said. He emphasized the federal government's resolve to roll out a
broadband plan. "In the long term, there is a commitment to formulating a strategy to get broadband to all of our citizens, and the FCC
has been put at the center of this and instructed within the next 10 months to come up with a national broadband plan," he said.
And that will lead to a new plan, said Copps, as well as a longer-term investment and investment stimulus. "So the role of the
government is growing, and it is not just on the economic side, but I think we will see a really proactive effort here to make this
process open and transparent," Copps said. Clarifying the doubts some have about whether the new broadband plan would include all
sectors of American society, Copps said, "As we develop the national [broadband] plan we will be talking not only to the business and
people, but also what I call nontraditional stakeholders of our country, which conceivably could be every citizen. "We want to make
sure we have a citizen-friendly Internet that is free, open, dynamic and does not allow unreasonable network management," he said.
Meanwhile, comments, suggestions and complaints have been pouring in every day since the FCC invited feedback from citizens to
help the commission craft an inclusive broadband plan. Some of these suggestions are eye openers about the poorstate of American
broadband."The only broadband access available to me is over a cell phone," said Allen Cole, an Oklahoma City resident. "This is too
expensive and not much faster than dial-up. We need affordable access out in the woods where no one will install telephone lines and
dish is unavailable because of the trees. I cannot even get cable TV! I know as soon as the leaves come out in the trees, I will not have
any TV service since all signals are digital now. We used to get fuzzy TV with analog but now when it rains our signal goes out. It is
only a matter of time before the leaves block the digital picture." Russell Parks, a rural resident of Ravenna, Ky., thinks broadband is
the only way Americans can lead the world. He insists that the government should build the information superhighway, and build it
now. "Rural Americans cannot wait for the market or competition to eventually build out high-speed networks to them," he said. "It
just wouldn't happen in a reasonable time at all, as we are still waiting for cable TV after 30 years. Broadband is far more important to
America's ability to lead the world than to allow the broadband gap to widen and deepen. The time is now to roll out broadband and
make it available to anyone who would want it. It makes no sense to let the market take care of itself while the rest of the world
advances ahead, leaving the United States to catch up."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           75/448


                                            BROADBAND SOLVES HEG

Broadband expansion directly boosts economic and military dominance
Ferguson 2 [Charles H. Ferguson is a nonresident senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and an independent
computer consultant, “The U.S. Broadband Problem,” Brookings Policy Brief #101, July 2002,
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/07technology_ferguson.aspx]

There is strong evidence that the Internet has played a major role in the productivity revival experienced by the United States since the
early 1990s. Productivity growth and military power are now driven primarily by information systems, which are becoming heavily
Internet-dependent. As digital technology continues its progress, the broadband problem is becoming a major bottleneck in the U.S.
and world economy. If allowed to persist, the broadband bottleneck will also cause "digital divide" problems, which arise when
unequal access to Internet services is thought to contribute to widening inequalities in income, wealth, and power. However,
computers are not the problem: the computer industry is highly competitive, and the inherent tendency of technology is to democratize
access. Indeed, the computer industry is now being reshaped by palmtop, game, and consumer-oriented systems costing only a few
hundred dollars, some of which already have more processing power than personal computers built in 1990. However, at current
prices, one year of ADSL costs as much as a home computer, and one year of T1 service costs as much as five office computers.
Improved broadband services would support globalization and political freedom. China and other nations, for example, have been
forced to permit increasingly widespread Internet use. They will be forced to permit broadband services, despite the fact that for
technical reasons they are more difficult to censor than conventional email or web pages.
And finally, local broadband deployment has significant interactions with energy, environmental, and national security policy. Nations
increasingly need to maintain economic growth without increasing energy use, greenhouse emissions, and pollution. One response is
to substitute communication for physical transportation via use of digital documents, videoconferencing, and so forth. However, large-
scale broadband deployment is required to realize these gains. And finally, local broadband policy also has significant national
security implications. U.S. national security and military power depend upon communications and information technology, whose
performance is now driven by commercial markets, with military products following years later. Moreover, the widespread
availability of broadband services for surveillance, videoconferencing, and other applications would directly increase the capabilities
of law enforcement, medical, and national security authorities.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           76/448


                             BROADBAND SOLVES FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Internet technology is key to freedom of speech
Shirazi 8 [Prof @ Institute for Research on Innovation and Technology Management @ Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson
University, “THE CONTRIBUTION OF ICT TO FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF A RCHIVAL
DATA ON THE MIDDLE EAST,” http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/download/499/255]

ICTs provide new tools for efficient public participation in the democratic process in the form of e-democracy, e-government, e-voting
and the dissemination of opinions, thoughts, ideas, and/or rallying social action about things that concern citizens. Clift (2003) argues
that e- democracy is the use of information and communications technologies and strategies by “democratic sectors” within the
political processes of local communities, states, regions, and nations, as well as those on the global stage such as the United Nations.
Morrisett (2003) points out that ICTs can be used to enhance the democratic process in form of e-government in which citizens are
able to effectively impact the decision-making process in a timely manner within and between institutionally, politically or
geographically distinct networked communities. Clift (2003) uses the phrase “representative e-government” to describe the e-
democracy activities of government institutions whether local or international. Government institutions are making significant
investments in the use of ICTs in their work, expressing “democratic intent”. Their efforts make this one of the most dynamic and
important areas of e-democracy development. Brinkerhoff (2005) states that the Internet facilitates the expression of liberal values,
such as individualism and freedom of speech, either through anonymity or access. Ferdinand (2000) argues that as a means of
communication, the Internet has the potential to revolutionize political activity far more profoundly than the telephone or television
ever did. This has led to the prediction that it will completely revolutionize government and democracy, to the extent that the outcome
will be a new wave of democratization world-wide, as authoritarian regimes will find it increasingly difficult to survive and as
established democracies transform. Kalathil et al. (2003) found that some studies have addressed the question of media and
democracy, engaging in comparative case studies of the Internet across a variety of developing counties, including many authoritarian
regimes. This section addresses the impact of ICT development and, more specifically, the Internet and mobile cell phones on the
promotion of freedom of expression in a region that is governed mostly by such regimes.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            77/448


                                       AT: ONLY SOLVES THE WEALTHY
Companies would rather target poorer, unserved customers, than fight for customers of other networks
Titch 7 policy analyst at Reason Foundation, focusing on telecommunications, information technology, and municipal broadband
issues. He is also managing editor of InfoTech & Telecom News (IT&T News) published by the Heartland Institute and provides
strategic market research and analysis as a private consultant. His columns have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Total Telecom,
and America's Network, (Steven, “I Want My MTV: Reforming Video Franchises for Competitive TV Services,” January,
http://reason.org/files/40a0a9445c0791f535f83734848c7c4e.pdf)

Opponents fear that new entrants will focus only on the high-end of the market unless forced to extend infrastructure to all parts of the
community. But there is no evidence to support this, only supposition. Thus far, phone companies have priced video services below
cable price points and targeted users of all incomes. This makes sense. It is easier—and more cost-effective in terms of marketing
dollars—to cultivate new users than lure away a captured clientele. Phone companies are aiming to do both, to be sure, but it would
make no sense for them to exclusively target the high-end.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                   78/448


                       *** WHO COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            79/448


                                                            WHO 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should increase funding to the World Health Organization for the
express purpose of pandemic disease research, prevention and elimination of diseases around the world.

The W.H.O. is our last line of defense against a pandemic- increased funding necessary to keep them alive
Nina Hachigian (Senior Fellow at American Progress) January 19, 2009: “WHO Can Stop an Epidemic,
http://www.good.is/post/who-can-stop-an-epidemic/
According to the New York Times, this season’s particular flu virus doesn’t respond—at all—to the standard flu medicine, Tamiflu. I
admit to shivering when I hear medical experts saying things like “It’s quite shocking” and “We’ve never lost an antimicrobial this
fast. It blew me away.” Thirty six thousand Americans die every year from the flu, so it’s no joke. But the last paragraph of the Times
piece is particularly chilling: “And while seasonal flu is relatively mild, the Tamiflu resistance could transfer onto the H5N1 bird flu
circulating in Asia and Egypt, which has killed millions of birds and about 250 people since 2003.” That is disturbing because the LA
Times reports last week that, after a two-year lull, avian flu is back and killing people again. In the past, pandemic health experts have
warned that this “H5N1″ avian flu virus could well become transmissible from human to human, and then we’d be in big trouble. The
flu from the turn of the 20th century, also an avian flu, killed the percentage equivalent today of two million Americans. Its victims
turned blue and coughed up blood In response to the outbreaks of avian flu, public health agencies around the world have been
stockpiling Tamiflu. So the idea of an avian flu virus that cannot be treated with Tamiflu is, well…yikes. All of this makes me wonder
why the World Health Organization is virtually unheard of in the U.S (and it has only 1,203 fans on Facebook compared to, say, over
600,000 fans for Red Bull). The WHO tracks global epidemics like avian flu and another nightmare pathogen, Ebola. It also more or
less eradicated polio and helps developing countries with their healthcare systems. The rules are that if there is an outbreak of
contagious disease in your country, you have to share samples of the virus with the WHO That way, the WHO can get scientists to
track and analyze the bug (and ideally develop a vaccine), and it can help coordinate a response among public health officials to
prevent the spread. No other group can do this—if Washington asked for those samples, many countries would refuse. The WHO is an
encouraging, and too rare, example of countries getting over their differences to solve a common problem. The WHO is underfunded
and needs reform, but it stands between us and some lethal future pandemic. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and
Obama’s pick for healthcare czar—Senator Tom Daschle—should be sure to support it, talk it up and push to make it as effective an
organization as it can be.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             80/448


                                                SOLVENCY – DISEASES

Your plan doesn’t solve- only the W.H.O. can solve pandemic diseases- empirically backed and it’s the only serious
multinational health organization that can tackle global health
Anne Applebaum (journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author who has written extensively about communism and the
development of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe. She has been an editor at The Economist, and a member of the
editorial board of the Washington Post) April 27, 2009 “Who’s Zooming WHO?” http://www.slate.com/id/2217016/
Today, the front page of my morning newspaper featured a photograph of uniformed Mexican policemen, machine guns at the
ready, surgical masks strapped to their faces, seemingly ready to defend their countrymen against the sudden outbreak of swine flu.
I live in Warsaw, Poland, which is pretty far from Mexico City. But even if I lived in Paris, my morning paper would have
contained similar pictures, so would it have done if I lived in Sydney or Kuala Lumpur. Just about anywhere in the world, in other
words, I would have caught a whiff of swine flu panic. I would also have been told what the World Health Organization in Geneva
is doing about it. WHO is the organization we all turn to at times like this, and rightly so: With more than 60 years' experience and
real achievements under its belt—it led the successful campaign to eliminate smallpox in the 1970s—WHO may well be the only
international organization that we genuinely cannot live without. When infectious diseases spread rapidly across borders, WHO is
expected to coordinate the scientific response of national public-health officials from France to Malaysia, as well as the global
information campaign needed to explain it. No national government can do the same. Fortunately for the rest of us, current WHO
Director-General Margaret Chan is an experienced public-health official, among other things responsible for the containment of
the 2003 SARS epidemic in Hong Kong. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the presence of Chan at what could be a crucial moment
is, if not actually a fluke, then a piece of monumental good luck. For, of course, WHO is not a stand-alone organization but, rather,
a part of the United Nations. As such, it is afflicted by many of the same illnesses, so to speak, as other U.N. agencies. Like them,
WHO is by definition not accountable to voters, and it is rarely scrutinized by the press. Its leaders are chosen according to the
opaque rules that govern top U.N. appointments. (If too many Africans have top jobs, then the director-general has to be an Asian,
etc.) Though it does occupy itself most of the time with concerns such as flu pandemic preparedness, some of its other priorities
reflect its members' political agendas. For example, a large chunk of money is devoted every year to tackling the "social and
economic factors that determine people's opportunities for health," such as poverty, education, and climate change—all worthy
issues that would nevertheless seem well beyond the scope of an organization that should primarily be concerned with infectious
disease. It gets worse. Like their other U.N. colleagues, WHO bureaucrats also spend much unnecessary time writing papers on
legally dubious notions like the "right to health"; others are scheming to create an international bureaucracy that would regulate all
drug research and development, while still others get sidetracked by issues such as obesity and automotive safety. WHO's 2008-13
strategic plan speaks of promoting "programmes that enhance health equity and integrate pro-poor, gender-responsive, and human
rights-based approaches," whatever that means. WHO is not exempt from other aspects of U.N. politics, either: Taiwan's repeated
attempts to join WHO are always vetoed by China, for example, and U.N. officials (speaking of human rights-based approaches)
routinely refuse Taiwanese journalists permission to cover WHO events. When the next epidemic starts in Taipei, we'll be sorry. I
am not trying to bash the World Health Organization. My point is that this is an institution that could easily drift away into
irrelevance under the influence of the institutional culture of the United Nations in Geneva. Look how much time and money it
wastes, despite the fact that its director-general is competent, and imagine how much more time and money it would waste if she
were not—as some of her predecessors were not. Look how little effort is made to ensure the organization stays focused on the one
task—infectious-disease control—that only it can carry out. At the same time, look how much diplomatic energy is also wasted on
institutions of far less importance. I am thinking here of last week's U.N. World Conference on Racism, notable largely for the fact
that the president of Iran, a country that openly persecutes religious dissenters, used it to launch an anti-Semitic diatribe. The truth
is that we tend to treat the really important U.N. institutions the way we treat the local water utility: Most of the time we don't care
who runs it or how well—but in an emergency, we expect a superhuman response. Now, just as we might really be on the brink of
an emergency, it is worth reminding ourselves that if we want WHO to be there when we need it, the organization must be
constantly monitored and fully funded. U.N. member governments should make absolutely sure it stays on focus. After all, only
WHO is equipped to carry out the international monitoring of the spread of a new infectious disease: Let's cross our fingers and
hope that this time it hasn't been distracted by something else.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             81/448


                                                SOLVENCY – DISEASES

The WHO is critical to controlling disease outbreaks – SARS proves
Shashi Tharoor (Chairman of Dubai-based Afras Ventures and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations) 2003: “Why
America Still Needs the United Nations”, Foreign Affairs, September/October,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82505/shashi-tharoor/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations.html
Thus U.S. foreign policy today has become as much a matter of managing global issues as managing bilateral ones. At the same time,
the concept of the nation-state as self-sufficient has also weakened; although the state remains the primary political unit, most citizens
now instinctively understand that it cannot do everything on its own. To function in the world, people increasingly have to deal with
institutions and individuals beyond their country's borders. American jobs depend not only on local firms and factories, but also on
faraway markets, grants of licenses and access from foreign governments, international trade rules that ensure the free movement of
goods and persons, and international financial institutions that ensure stability. There are thus few unilateralists in the American
business community. Americans' safety, meanwhile, depends not only on local police forces, but also on guarding against the global
spread of pollution, disease, terror, illegal drugs, and WMD. As the World Health Organization's successful battle against the dreaded
sars epidemic has demonstrated, "problems without passports" are those that only international action can solve.
Fortunately, the UN and its broad family of agencies have, in nearly six decades of life, built a remarkable record of expertise and
achievement on these issues. The UN has brought humanitarian relief to millions in need and helped people rebuild their countries
from the ruins of war. It has challenged poverty, fought apartheid, protected the rights of children, promoted decolonization and
democracy, and placed environmental and gender issues at the top of the world's agenda. These are no small achievements, and
represent issues the United States cannot afford to neglect.

The WHO is the only organization that can solve influenza- multilateral actions is key
Laurie Garrett (Senior fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations) 2005: “The Next Pandemic?”, Foreign Affairs,
July/August, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faessay84401-p70/laurie-garrett/the-next-pandemic.html
National policymakers would be wise to plan now for worst-case scenarios involving quarantines, weakened armed services, and
dwindling hospital space and vaccine supplies. But at the end of the day, effectively combating influenza will require multilateral and
global mechanisms. Chief among them, of course, is the WHO, which since 1947 has maintained a worldwide network that conducts
influenza surveillance. The WHO system oversees laboratories all over the world, chases (and sometimes refutes) rumors of
pandemics, pushes for government transparency regarding human and avian flu cases, and acts as an arbiter in negotiations over
vaccine production, trade embargoes, and border disputes. Its companion UN agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
working closely with the World Organization for Animal Health, monitors flu outbreaks in animal populations and advises
governments on culling flocks and herds, cross-border animal trade, animal husbandry and slaughter, and livestock quarantine and
vaccination. All of these organizations have published lengthy guidelines on how to respond to a pandemic flu, lists of answers to
commonly asked questions, and descriptions of their research priorities -- most of which have been posted on their Web sites.
The efforts of these agencies should be bolstered, both with expertise and dollars. The WHO, for example, has an annual core budget
of just $400 million, a tiny increment of which is spent on influenza- and epidemic-response programs. (In comparison, the annual
budget of New York City's health department exceeds $1.2 billion.) An unpublished internal study estimates that the agency would
require at least another $600 million for its flu program were a pandemic to erupt. It is in every government's interest to give the WHO
and the FAO the authority to act as impartial voices during a pandemic, able (theoretically) to assess objectively the epidemic's
progress and rapidly evaluate research claims. The WHO in particular must have adequate funding and personnel to serve as an
accurate clearinghouse of information about the disease, thereby preventing the spread of false rumors and global panic. No nation can
erect a fortress against influenza -- not even the world's wealthiest country.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                           82/448


                                                      SOLVENCY – DISEASES

WHO takes a 6 prong approach that allows them to be the most effective organization in combating dangerous diseases
WHO.com no date given (World Health Organization, Leading Global Health Institution) “The WHO Agenda,
http://www.who.int/about/agenda/en/index.html
WHO operates in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing landscape. The boundaries of public health action have become
blurred, extending into other sectors that influence health opportunities and outcomes. WHO responds to these challenges using a six-point
agenda. The six points address two health objectives, two strategic needs, and two operational approaches. The overall performance of WHO will be
measured by the impact of its work on women's health and health in Africa.
1. Promoting development
During the past decade, health has achieved unprecedented prominence as a key driver of socioeconomic progress, and more resources than ever are
being invested in health. Yet poverty continues to contribute to poor health, and poor health anchors large populations in poverty. Health
development is directed by the ethical principle of equity: Access to life-saving or health-promoting interventions should not be denied for
unfair reasons, including those with economic or social roots. Commitment to this principle ensures that WHO activities aimed at
health development give priority to health outcomes in poor, disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. Attainment of the health-related
Millennium Development Goals, preventing and treating chronic diseases and addressing the neglected tropical diseases are the cornerstones of
the health and development agenda.
2. Fostering health security
Shared vulnerability to health security threats demands collective action. One of the greatest threats to international health security arises
from outbreaks of emerging and epidemic-prone diseases. Such outbreaks are occurring in increasing numbers, fuelled by such factors as rapid
urbanization, environmental mismanagement, the way food is produced and traded, and the way antibiotics are used and misused. The world's ability
to defend itself collectively against outbreaks will be strengthened in June 2007, when the revised International Health Regulations come into force.
3. Strengthening health systems
For health improvement to operate as a poverty-reduction strategy, health services must reach poor and underserved populations. Health
systems in many parts of the world are unable to do so, making the strengthening of health systems a high priority for WHO. Areas being
addressed include the provision of adequate numbers of appropriately trained staff, sufficient financing, suitable systems for collecting vital statistics,
and access to appropriate technology including essential drugs.
4. Harnessing research, information and evidence
Evidence provides the foundation for setting priorities, defining strategies, and measuring results. WHO generates authoritative health
information, in consultation with leading experts, to set norms and standards, articulate evidence-based policy options and monitor the
evolving global heath situation.
5. Enhancing partnerships
WHO carries out its work with the support and collaboration of many partners, including UN agencies and other international organizations,
donors, civil society and the private sector. WHO uses the strategic power of evidence to encourage partners implementing programmes
within countries to align their activities with best technical guidelines and practices, as well as with the priorities established by
countries.
6. Improving performance
WHO participates in ongoing reforms aimed at improving its efficiency and effectiveness, both at the international level and within
countries. WHO aims to ensure that its strongestasset - its staff - works in an environment that is motivating and rewarding. WHO plans its
budget and activities through results-based management, with clear expected results to measure performance at country, regional and
international levels.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         83/448


                                       SOLVENCY – GLOBAL POVERTY

Global vaccinations solve for global poverty—education, productivity, savings and investment, and a demographic transition
The Economist 2006: “A drop of pure gold”
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pgda/Old%20PDFs/EconomistBloomCanningarticleOct.13.com.pdf
WHAT good is vaccination? Obviously it is good for the person receiving the vaccine, if he is thus prevented from suffering from a
nasty disease. More subtly, it can be good for an entire population since, if enough of its members are vaccinated, even those who are
not will receive a measure of protection. That is because, with only a few susceptible individuals, the transmission of the infection
cannot be maintained and the disease spread. But in the case of many vaccines, there are non-medical benefits, too, in the form of
costs avoided and the generation of income that would otherwise have been lost. These goods are economic. Quantifying these more
general benefits is hard. But a pair of researchers from Harvard University has just tried. David Bloom and David Canning, together
with Mark Weston, an independent policy consultant, have looked at two vaccination programmes and attempted to calculate the
wider benefits. Their conclusions have just been published in World Economics. Dr Bloom and Dr Canning believed that previous
attempts to quantify the non-medical benefits of vaccination had been too narrow. These had looked at such data as the cost of a
programme per life saved, but had failed to take account of recent work on the effects of health on incomes. For their study, they and
Mr Weston identified how vaccination, in particular, might increase wealth. The first benefit was that healthy children are more likely
to attend school and better able to learn. The second was that healthy workers are more productive. Both of these seem fairly obvious.
Two other benefits are less so, however. One is that good health promotes savings and investment. This is because healthy people both
expect to live longer (which gives them an incentive to save) and actually do live longer (which gives them more time to save). The
other is that good health—and, particularly, expectations about the good health of one's offspring—promotes the so-called
demographic transition from large to small families that usually accompanies economic development. None of these factors, the
researchers thought, had been properly taken account of in previous estimates of the cost-effectiveness of vaccination. To demonstrate
that at least one of their ideas was correct, they turned to the Philippines. Here, a study called the Cebu Longitudinal Health and
Nutrition Survey has been going on since 1983. It follows the lives of Filipina mothers and those of their children born in 1983 and
1984. Among the data collected were records of the vaccinations these children received as infants and also their scores in language,
maths and IQ tests at the age of ten. The three researchers organised children whose social circumstances were similar into groups,
depending on whether or not the children had been vaccinated against a range of diseases including measles, polio and tuberculosis.
They then compared test scores between groups. They found a statistically significant difference in the language and IQ scores
between otherwise comparable vaccinated and unvaccinated children. In both cases, those of the unvaccinated were lower. Since it is
known from other studies that these scores are good predictors of adult income, the researchers concluded that childhood vaccination
would have significant economic benefits.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                               84/448


                                                               US FUNDING KEY

US funding towards disease prevention is key to international protection—international agencies can solve best, but only with
increased funding
Lee B. Reichman (Guest writer for NJ Voices) 4/30/2009 “Swine flu outbreak shows need for more health research funding”,
http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/04/swine_flu_outbreak_shows_need.html
The outbreak of deadly swine flu in Mexico and its spread to the United States and other countries is only the most recent example
of an infectious disease crossing borders. The list is long: avian flu, SARS, yellow fever, dengue fever, malaria, HIV and
tuberculosis, including the dangerous strains of extremely drug-resistant TB (or XDR-TB), to name just a few recent examples.
The World Health Organization warned yesterday the swine flu outbreak is approaching pandemic status. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, along with regional, state, and local public health agencies will mount an aggressive prevention strategy to
try to limit the spread of the swine flu. Health officials in the U.S., the European Union and other countries have discouraged
nonessential travel to Mexico. But this response, while utterly necessary, is not all we should be doing. The U.S. and other nations
need to invest much more in stopping these diseases at their source - and one of the most cost-effective ways in doing this is
through global health research. Now there is finally some hope it could happen. President Obama on Monday announced that he
wants to devote more than 3 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product to scientific research and development - exceeding
the level of research set during the Space Race. The president said the emerging cases of swine flu illustrate how a "public health
challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community." It is now up to the administration and
members of Congress to ensure that some of this proposed new funding is devoted to basic scientific health research that can
unlock growing threats around the world. We need research that better understands how diseases can be transmitted from animals
to humans. We need research that provides new and better drugs to cure cases of TB, including the deadly XDR-TB, which can be
passed on by a sneeze in the cabin of an airplane. We need research that finds highly effective vaccines against the range of
mosquito-borne illnesses. This course of action isn't optional. This is vital to the health and welfare of people worldwide,
including Americans. Most people don't realize how woefully behind the times we are when it comes to battling certain diseases.
For TB, we need new diagnostic tests, new drugs, and a new vaccine. We still use a test invented over 100 years ago to detect
cases of TB. The test -- a relic from another age -- misses half the cases of TB that occur. This is emblematic of the crudeness of
the tools we're using to try to defeat the most deadly infectious disease in the world. Not only are we dealing with a diagnostic test
far older than the inventions of automobiles and airplanes, but we are fighting a disease with an 85-year-old vaccine and a pool of
drugs that hasn't had a newcomer in 40 years. During Sunday's announcement that the swine flu outbreak was a public health
emergency, several U.S. officials took the podium. There were some of the people you'd expect -- CDC's acting director Richard
Besser took the lead in telling the public about the dangers. But Besser also was joined by Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano. Why would the country's top security and anti-terrorism official appear at a press conference on the swine flu
outbreak? There's one practical reason - it enables the release of federal funds to states. But it's also because fighting infectious
diseases is a matter of national security. It's protecting the homeland; it's protecting all of us. Public health programs, such as
mandatory TB skin tests and screenings for teachers, are by definition defense programs. They defend public health and protect
our children. That's why an investment in global health research to find clues stopping future pandemics should be perceived not
just as a global health matter, but as a matter of national defense. The federal government will now make roughly 12 million doses
of the drug Tamiflu available to places that need it most. Napolitano said the action amounts to a "declaration of emergency
preparedness." If this swine flu outbreak spreads - and there's a good chance it will -- it's going to cost tens of millions of dollars,
and possibly much, much more. This outbreak vividly illustrates how easily infectious diseases cross borders. Despite vigilance,
we won't be able to erect barriers. But in the future, scientists and researchers can stop a scare before it ever happens, efficiently,
quietly, and at relatively low cost.

U.S. action is necessary- The WHO would be largely ineffective unless the United States helps
David Fidler (prof. of law and Ira C. Batman Faculty Fellow, Indiana University School of Law) 2003: The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, “Racism or
Realpolitik? U.S. Foreign Policy and the HIV/AIDS Catastrophe in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Spring, 7 J. Gender Race & Just. 97, lexis
<At the forefront of the controversy surrounding the HIV/AIDS catastrophe are questions concerning the tepid and tardy response
of rich, Western nations to the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, why has U.S. foreign policy been shaped as it
has in connection with HIV/AIDS in Africa? The consensus in the community of global non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
active on HIV/AIDS is, to put it mildly, that the United States has not responded [*99] appropriately or adequately to the public
health crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. 13 These NGOs have pointed out not only the United States' limited financial contributions to
HIV/AIDS efforts in sub-Saharan Africa, but also its determined effort to limit the supply of antiretroviral drugs in the countries in
Africa most hard hit by the tragedy. 14 Although members of the former Clinton administration and current Bush administration
with responsibilities for U.S. foreign policy on HIV/AIDS would dispute these accusations, most observers would agree that U.S.
foreign policy has been at the center of much sound and fury in connection with discourse on the HIV/AIDS debacle in sub-
Saharan Africa.>
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                            Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                  85/448


                       *** OFFSHORE BALANCING COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                    86/448


                                                OFFSHORE BALANCING 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should adopt offshore balancing as its grand strategy for military
deployment as per the suggestions by Christopher Layne

Solves heg – first, the current strategy of US military posturing is collapsing and unsustainable
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
The US has reached a watershed in Iraq and the Middle East. Washington needs to revamp its overall regional grand strategy
because the current strategy is in shambles. Although the security situation in Iraq has improved since late 2006, the nation
remains extremely fragile politically and its future is problematic. On the other hand, things are unravelling in Afghanistan,
where the insurgency led by the revitalized Taliban is spreading. The US and Iran remain on a collision course over Tehran’s
nuclear weapons programme – and its larger regional ambitions. Moreover, the summer 2006 fighting in Lebanon weakened US
Middle Eastern policy in four ways. First, it enhanced Iran’s regional clout. Second, it intensified anti-American public opinion in the
Middle East. Third, it fuelled a populist Islamic groundswell in the region that threatens to undermine America’s key Middle East
allies: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Fourth, American policy in the Middle East has increased the terrorist threat to the US.

AND, The U.S. should adopt an offshore balancing strategy – reduces hostilities
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
In this paper, I argue that there is an emerging consensus among realists that the U.S. should abandon its hegemonic strategy and
adopt an offshore balancing strategy. Here, Iraqand the so called war on terrorism (or “long war,” or “globalcounter-insurgency,” as
some American officials sometimes referto it) have been the catalysts. Increasingly, it is recognized that U.S. aims in the Persian
Gulf/Middle East - and the American military presence in the region - have fueled terrorism, and caused Iran to self-
defensively seek to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. A number of leading realists now argue that the best strategy for the
U.S. is to extricate itself from Iraq, reduce its regional footprint, and adopt an offshore balancing strategy.
In this paper, I make the case for offshore balancing asAmerica’s next grand strategy. In so doing, I argue thatoffshore balancing can
be considered as a “wedge” (or wedge-like)strategy for two reasons. First, at the great power level, it can be used to break up
potential alliances directed against the United States, and also to force possible future rivals of the United States to focus their
security policies on each other rather than on counterbalancing the U.S.Second, in the MiddleEast an offshore balancing
posture would help drain away much of the opposition to American policies that fosters Islamic terrorism directed at the
United States.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           87/448


                                        OFFSHORE BALANCING 1NC 2/2

AND, Offshore balancing prevents the need for a large military – forward deployment ans an increase of military troops is
unnecessary
Charles PEÑA (Senior Fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project, and
analyst for MSNBC) 2006: “A Smaller Military To Fight the War on Terror," Orbis, Volume 50, Issue 2, Spring, ScienceDirect
Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the total number of U.S. active-duty military personnel was more than 1.4 million troops, of which
237,473 were deployed in foreign countries.10 Assuming twice as many troops need to be deployed in the United States in order to
rotate those deployments at specified intervals,11 then more than 700,000 active-duty troops, along with their associated force
structure, are required to maintain a global military presence. Since the United States does not in fact have to maintain its current
worldwide deployments, U.S. security against nation-state threats can be achieved at significantly lower costs. Instead of a
Cold War–era extended defense perimeter and forward-deployed forces, today's nation-state threat environment affords the
United States the opportunity to adopt a “balancer-of-last-resort” strategy. Such a strategy would place greater emphasis on
allowing countries to build regional security arrangements, even in important areas such as Europe and East Asia. In 2001,
Ivan Eland argued: The regional arrangements could include a regional security organization (such as any newly formed defense
subset of the European Union), a great power policing its sphere of influence, or simply a balance of power among the larger nations
of a region. Those regional arrangements would check aspiring hegemonic powers and thus keep power in the international system
diffuse.12 Ted Galen Carpenter at the Cato Institute also argues in favor of a balancer-of-last-resort strategy: The United States no
longer faces a would-be hegemonic rival, nor is any credible challenger on the horizon. That development should
fundamentally change how we view regional or internecine conflicts. In most cases such disorders will not impinge on vital
U.S. interests. Washington can, therefore, afford to view them with detachment, intervening only as a balancer of last resort
when a conflict cannot be contained by other powers in the affected region and is expanding to the point where America's
security is threatened.13 Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University echoes Eland and Carpenter in
his argument for an offshore balancing strategy: The final option is offshore balancing, which has been America's traditional grand
strategy. In this strategy, the United States deploys its power abroad only when there are direct threats to vital American interests.
Offshore balancing assumes that only a few areas of the globe are of strategic importance to the United States (that is, worth fighting
and dying for). Specifically, the vital areas are the regions where there are substantial concentrations of power and wealth or critical
natural resources: Europe, industrialized Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Offshore balancing further recognizes that the United States does
not need to control these areas directly; it merely needs to ensure that they do not fall under the control of a hostile great power and
especially not under the control of a so-called peer competitor. To prevent rival great powers from doing this, offshore balancing
prefers to rely primarily on local actors to uphold the regional balance of power. Under this strategy, the United States would
intervene with its own forces only when regional powers are unable to uphold the balance of power on their own.14 Therefore,
instead of being a first responder to every crisis and conflict, the U.S. military would only intervene when truly vital U.S.
security interests were at stake. That would allow U.S. forces to be expeditionary—i.e., mostly stationed in the United States,
rather than being forward-deployed in other countries around the world. Such a posture might require prepositioning of supplies and
equipment and negotiating access and base rights, but would not require large numbers of troops to be stationed in foreign
countries.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                          88/448


                                                                  SOLVENCY – HEG

Offshore Balancing solves U.S. interests best – stops political backlash
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
Primacy’s neorealist critics have outlined an alternative grand strategy that increasingly resonates with the American public:
offshore balancing. Its proponents believe that offshore balancing can do a better job than primacy of enhancing American
security and matching US foreign policy objectives with the resources available to support them. The driving factor behind
offshore balancing is its proponents’ recognition that the US has a ‘hegemony’ problem. America’s strategy of primacy increases
US vulnerability to a geopolitical backlash – whether in the guise of countervailing great power coalitions, or terrorist attacks
– and alienates public opinion in large swaths of the globe, including Europe and the Middle East.

Counterplan key to protecting U.S. interests – empirically proven
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
As the new President takes office, the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East. Despite Obama's promises to withdraw from Iraq, the debacle there shows no
sign of ending soon, and it has made America's terrorism problem worse, not better. Meanwhile, Hamas rules in Gaza, Iran's stature is on the rise and Tehran is quickly
moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent—which, despite a lot of tough talk, the United States and its allies have been unable to prevent. And America's image
throughout the Middle East is at an all-time low. All this is a direct result of the Bush administration's misguided policy of regional
transformation. George W. Bush hoped he could implant democracy in the Middle East by using the U.S. military to topple the unfriendly
regime in Baghdad—and maybe those in Damascus and Tehran, too—and replace them with friendly, democratic governments. Things didn't work out well, of
course, and it's now vital that the new president devise a radically different strategy for dealing with this critical part of the world.
Fortunately, one approach has proved effective in the past and could serve America again today: "offshore balancing." During the cold
war, this strategy enabled Washington to contain Iran and Iraq and deter direct Soviet intervention in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. As a
Middle East policy, offshore balancing may be less ambitious than Bush's grand design was—no one promises it will lead to an "Arab
spring"—but it will be much more effective at protecting actual U.S. interests. So what would it look like? As an offshore balancer,
the United States would keep its military forces—especially its ground and air forces—outside the Middle East, not smack in the
center of it. Hence the term "offshore." As for "balancing," that would mean relying on regional powers like Iran, Iraq and Saudi
Arabia to check each other. Washington would remain diplomatically engaged, and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a
conflict. It would also use its air and naval power to signal a continued U.S. commitment to the region and would retain the capacity to
respond quickly to unexpected threats, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But—and this is the key point—the United States would
put boots on the ground in the Middle East only if the local balance of power seriously broke down and one country threatened to
dominate the others. Short of that, America would keep its soldiers and pilots "over the horizon"—namely at sea, in bases outside the region
or back home in the United States. This approach might strike some as cynical after Bush's lofty rhetoric. It would do little to foster democracy or promote human
rights. But Bush couldn't deliver on those promises anyway, and it is ultimately up to individual countries, not Washington, to determine their political systems. It is
hardly cynical to base U.S. strategy on a realistic appraisal of American interests and a clear-eyed sense of what U.S. power cannot accomplish.

Offshore Balancing solves for bloody wars like Iraq and mitigates the deficit
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Offshore balancing has three particular virtues that would be especially appealing today. First, it would significantly reduce (though
not eliminate) the chances that the United States would get involved in another bloody and costly war like Iraq. America doesn't need
to control the Middle East with its own forces; it merely needs to ensure that no other country does. Toward that end, offshore
balancing would reject the use of military force to reshape the politics of the region and would rely instead on local allies to contain
their dangerous neighbors. As an offshore balancer, the United States would husband its own resources and intervene only as a last
resort. And when it did, it would finish quickly and then move back offshore. The relative inexpensiveness of this approach is
particularly attractive in the current climate. The U.S. financial bailout has been hugely expensive, and it's not clear when the economy
will recover. In this environment, America simply cannot afford to be fighting endless wars across the Middle East, or anywhere else.
Remember that Washington has already spent $600 billion on the Iraq War, and the tally is likely to hit more than $1 trillion before
that conflict is over. Imagine the added economic consequences of a war with Iran. Offshore balancing would not be free—the United
States would still have to maintain a sizable expeditionary force and the capacity to move it quickly—but would be a lot cheaper than
the alternative.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                      89/448


                                                                SOLVENCY – HEG

The U.S. has not adopted offshore balancing – failure to do so unifies nation - states against the U.S. – fuels hostilities
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
The US, of course, has not acted as an offshore balancer. Rather, for more than sixty years it consciously has sought extra-regional
hegemony in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.14 Rather than acting as a ‘wedge’ strategy, American primacy – especially now
that the Cold War has ended – now threatens to act more like a kind of glue that unifies other states, and, increasingly, non-state actors
like Al- Qaeda, in resistance to America’s expansive geopolitical and ideological ambitions. The operational differences between the
strategies of primacy and offshore balancing can be illustrated by examining how each would deal with the most pressing foreign
policy issue facing the US today: the Middle East.

Offshore Balancing increases U.S. security – deflects attention – allows competing powers to fight against each other, not with
the US
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
While not generally conceived of as a wedge strategy, offshore balancing is a way that an insular great power can neutralize threats to
its security.By acting as an offshore balancer, an insular great power can accomplish two vital grand strategic tasks. First, because its
would-be adversaries invariably live in dangerous neighbourhoods, by truly being ‘offshore’ and non-threatening, an insular great
power can deflect the focus of other states’ security policies away from itself. Simply put, if an offshore power stands on the sidelines,
other great powers will compete against each other, not against it. It can thus enhance its securitysimply because the dynamics of
balance-of-power politics invariably will draw would-be competitors in other regions into rivalries with each other. The fact that non-
insular states must worry constantly about possible threats from nearby neighbours is a factor that historically has worked to increase
the relative power position of insular states. Thus, as Paul Kennedy notes, after 1815 a major reason that Britain’s interests were not challenged by an
overwhelming coalition was due to ‘the preoccupation of virtually all European statesman with continental power politics’ because it ‘was the moves of their neighbors,
not the usually discreet workings of British sea power, which interested them’.12
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               90/448


                                                                                                       SOLVENCY – HEG

Offshore Balancing would reduce the risks associated with US heg – distances the US from turbulent regions
Christopher Layne (associate professor in the School of International Studies at the University of Miami) 2002 Offshore Balancing Revisited, Washington
Quarterly, 2/25, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v025/25.2layne.html
                                                                                                                              the big
In the longer term, regardless of future developments in the war on terrorism, the paradox of U.S. power will not disappear. Looking beyond the war,
question confronting U.S. strategists in coming years is how to reduce the risks of U.S. hegemony. To lower the risk, the United States
must change its grand strategy. One grand strategic alternative to primacy is offshore balancing. Like primacy, offshore balancing is a strategy
firmly rooted in the Realist tradition. Primacy adherents regard multipolarity--an international system comprised of three or more great powers--as a strategic threat to
the United States, while offshore balancers see it as a strategic opportunity for the United States. Offshore balancing is predicated on the assumption that attempting to
maintain U.S. hegemony is self-defeating because it will provoke other states to combine in opposition to the United States and result in the futile depletion of the
United States' relative power, thereby leaving it worse off than if it accommodated multipolarity. Offshore balancing accepts that the United States cannot prevent the
rise of new great powers either within (the EU, Germany, and Japan) or outside (China, a resurgent Russia) its sphere of influence. Offshore balancing would
also relieve the United States of its burden of managing the security affairs of turbulent regions such as the Persian Gulf/Middle East
and Southeast Europe. Offshore balancing is a grand strategy based on burden shifting, not burden sharing. It would transfer to others
the task of maintaining regional power balances; [End Page 245] checking the rise of potential global and regional hegemons; and
stabilizing Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf/Middle East. In other words, other states would have to become responsible for providing their own
security and for the security of the regions in which they live (and contiguous ones), rather than looking to the United States to do it for them. The events of September
11 make offshore balancing an attractive grand strategic alternative to primacy for two reasons. First, looking beyond the war on terrorism, the Persian
Gulf/Middle East region is clearly, endemically unstable. If the United States attempts to perpetuate its hegemonic role in the region
after having accomplished its immediate war aims, the probability of a serious geopolitical backlash within the region against the
United States is high.Second, because the U.S. victory in the war on terrorism will underscore U.S. predominance in international
politics, victory's paradoxical effect will be to heighten European, Russian, and Chinese fears of U.S. power. By adopting an offshore
balancing strategy once the war on terrorism ends, the United States would benefit in two ways. First, others have much greater
intrinsic strategic interests in the region than does the United States. For example, Western Europe, Japan, and, increasingly, China are far more
dependent on the region's oil than the United States. Because they live next door, Russia, China, Iran, and India have a much greater long-term
security interest in regional stability in the Persian Gulf/Middle East than the United States. By passing the mantle of regional
stabilizer to these great and regional powers, the United States could extricate itself from the messy and dangerous geopolitics of the
Persian Gulf/Middle East and take itself out of radical Islam's line of fire. Second, although a competitive component to U.S. relations with the other great powers in a multipolar world would be
inescapable, multipolar politics have historically engendered periods of great-power cooperation. On the cooperative side, an offshore balancing strategy would be coupled with a policy of spheres of influence, which have always been an important item in the toolbox of

great-power policymakers.
             By recognizing each other's paramount interests in certain regions, great powers can avoid the kinds of
misunderstandings that could trigger conflict. Moreover, the mere act of signaling that one country understands another's larger security stake in a particular
region, a stake that it will respect by noninterference, allows states to communicate a nonthreatening posture to one another. By recognizing the legitimacy of other
interests, a great power also signals that it accepts them as equals. An offshore balancing strategy would immunize the United States against a post-
war-on-terrorism backlash against U.S. hegemony in one other way. By accepting the emergence of new great powers and
simultaneously pulling back from its primacy-driven military posture, the United States would reduce perception of a "U.S. threat,"
thereby lowering the chances that others will view it as an [End Page 246] overpowerful hegemon. In this sense, offshore balancing is
a strategy of restraint that would allow theUnited States to minimize the risks of open confrontation with the new great powers.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        91/448


                                                 SOLVENCY – PROLIF

Offshore Balancing solves for nuclear weapons – removes motivation for seeking wmds
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Third, offshore balancing would reduce fears in Iran and Syria that the United States aims to attack them and remove their regimes—a
key reason these states are currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will
require Washington to address Iran's legitimate security concerns and to refrain from issuing overt threats. Removing U.S. troops from
the neighborhood would be a good start. The United States can't afford to completely disengage from the Middle East, but offshore
balancing would make U.S. involvement there less threatening. Instead of lumping potential foes together and encouraging them to
join forces against America, this strategy would encourage contending regional powers to compete for the United States' favor,
thereby facilitating a strategy of divide-and-conquer. A final, compelling reason to adopt this approach to the Middle East is that
nothing else has worked. In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration pursued a "dual containment" strategy: instead of using Iraq
and Iran to check each other, the United States began trying to contain both. This policy guaranteed only that each country came to
view the United States as a bitter enemy. It also required the United States to deploy large numbers of troops in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia. The policy fueled local resentment, helped persuade Osama bin Laden to declare war on America and led to the bombing of
the Khobar Towers in 1996, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and, eventually, 9/11.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                   92/448


                                                           SOLVENCY – TERROR

Offshore Balancing solves terrorism
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Second, offshore balancing would ameliorate America's terrorism problem. One of the key lessons of the past century is that
nationalism and other forms of local identity remain intensely powerful, and foreign occupiers generate fierce local resentment. That
resentment often manifests itself in terrorism or even large-scale insurgencies directed at the United States. When the Reagan
administration put U.S. troops in Beirut following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, local terrorists responded by suicide-bombing
the U.S. Embassy in April 1983 and the U.S. Marine barracks in October, killing more than 300. Keeping U.S. military forces out of
sight until they are needed would minimize the anger created by having them permanently stationed on Arab soil.

Offshore Balancing would lessen the threat of terrorism – military presence causes anti-Americanism sentiments
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
                                                                                                                             the Middle
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1In
East, an offshore balancing strategy would break sharply with the Bush administration’s approach to the Middle East. As an offshore
balancer, the US would redefine its regional interests, reduce its military role, and adopt a new regional diplomatic posture. It would
seek to dampen the terrorist threat by removing the on-the ground US military presence in the region, and to quell rampant anti-
Americanism in the Islamic world by pushing hard for a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The strategy would also avoid
further destabilisation of the Middle East by abandoning the project of regional democratic transformation. Finally, as an offshore
balancer, Washington would seek a diplomatic accommodation of its differences with Iran.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            93/448


                                                AT: TRANSITION WARS

Transition will be peaceful- the international system accommodates rising powers
John Ikenberry (Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton) 2008: “The Rise of China and the Future of the West.”
Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Vol. 87, Issue 1
THE MOST important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising
powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order.
The fact that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to
overturn the existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, great-power war is, thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical
change. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process. The Western order's strong framework of rules and institutions
is already starting to facilitate Chinese integration. At first, China embraced certain rules and institutions for defensive purposes:
protecting its sovereignty and economic interests while seeking to reassure other states of its peaceful intentions by getting involved in
regional and global groupings. But as the scholar Marc Lanteigne argues, "What separates China from other states, and indeed
previous global powers, is that not only is it 'growing up' within a milieu of international institutions far more developed than ever
before, but more importantly, it is doing so while making active use of these institutions to promote the country's development of
global power status." China, in short, is increasingly working within, rather than outside of, the Western order.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                       94/448


                       *** REUINITING FAMILIES ACT COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             95/448


                                              REUNITING FAMILIES 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should pass The Reuniting Families Act.

Comprehensive immigration reform is key to solve the economy
Mike Honda (chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus), Linda Sanchez (member of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus), and Jared Polis (co-chairman of the Congressional Equality Caucus) 6/2/2009: Reuniting Families Act would aid
economy, help clear immigration backlog. http://thehill.com/op-eds/reuniting-families-act-would-aid-economy--help-clear-
immigration-backlog-2009-06-02.html
During trying economic times, the natural reaction of many countries, ours included, is to close the borders and look inward. While
America’s consistent monthly job losses and the plummeting of the stock market may cause us to feel guarded, limiting immigration
has proven to be economically unsound and harmful to American families.
At a time when we must utilize every available resource to stimulate our economy, comprehensive immigration reform makes good
fiscal sense. The Reuniting Families Act, which we are introducing in Congress this week, should be at the heart of comprehensive
immigration reform, seeking to fix our broken immigration system while taking into account the current economic climate.
Our family-based immigration system has not been updated in 20 years, separating spouses, children and their parents, who have
played by the rules, for years, often decades. Our proposed legislation is in line with both American family values and with our short-
term need to grow our economy and save taxpayer money. By providing American workers with a vital social safety net — that is,
their family — we help make our communities stronger and more resilient.
The benefits here cannot be overstated. American workers with families by their side are happier, healthier and more able to succeed
than those distanced from loved ones for years on end. Families provide a critical support system. By pooling resources, families can
do together what they can’t do alone — start family businesses, create American jobs and contribute more to this country’s welfare.
Strong families are essential to ensuring that breadwinners are efficient and effective on the job, whether that means taking on the
responsibility of caring for children, the sick or the elderly, preparing lunches, or providing transportation for the often two-plus jobs
many workers maintain.
It is something most of us take for granted, yet it is essential for a successful income-generating agenda: The healthier the community,
the more expendable income is available and the lower the burden on government social services. This correlation is well researched
and well substantiated, but it is up to us to make it a reality — and this legislation is the place to start.
It is often the children of immigrants, U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents who benefit the most from having the support of a
present and close-knit family. All families should be given the opportunity to work together to achieve the American dream, which is
why this legislation would allow permanent partners the ability to reunite their families as well.
The Reuniting Families Act would also help to clear the current immigration logjam of 5.8 million people by providing legal
mechanisms to streamline the application process. At present, the bureaucratic backlog wastes precious government resources, both
human and financial. In response, this bill streamlines the application process so that it is fair and incentivizes potential applicants to
use legal channels to join their family in the United States.
A streamlined system and reduced backlog would demonstrate to immigrants tempted to arrive outside the legal process that there is a
light at the end of the tunnel for those who stay within the legal process. Lastly, reuniting families will keep tax dollars, or
remittances, in the U.S. instead of having workers send substantial portions of their salary to their family members abroad. Unlike the
rest of the struggling market, remittances continue to weather the economic storm as workers here send funds back to their families
throughout Latin America and the rest of the world.
As an example of the potential, U.S. remittances to Latin America alone totaled nearly $46 billion in 2008. Of that, Mexico received
nearly $24 billion. Remittances offer the most obvious potential cash infusion for our economy, as billions of dollars currently
being sent overseas would instead be spent in American shops and restaurants, creating jobs and helping to get our economy
going.
We understand how communities across America are inclined to take a narrow view at a time when pocketbooks are feeling the
greatest pinch. That is exactly why we are so confident about the economic benefits that immigration-related stimulus would provide.
The equation is simple: Keep American workers happy and healthy, with families at heart.
Our country can keep remittances that might otherwise be sent overseas, create social safety nets and larger expendable incomes, and
make our immigration system more efficient by reducing bureaucratic backlogs. We must seize every opportunity this year to get our
economy back on track, and one clear way of doing so is to reunite America’s workers with their families.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         96/448


                                              SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Solves the economy – remittances and reuniting families
Jennie L. Ilustre (Staff Writer) 6/30/2009: Coalition Supports ‘Reuniting Families Act
http://www.asianfortunenews.com/site/article_0709.php?article_id=125
WASHINGTON–The Asian American community joined Latinos, African Americans, labor, faith groups and gay and lesbian
advocates in supporting “The Reuniting Families Act,” introduced last month by Congressman Mike Honda (D, CA) in the 111th
Congress. Honda and his co-sponsors stressed family reunification was “a key component” of comprehensive immigration reform.
The bill proposes to clear the bureaucratic backlog of 5.8 million people, including Asian Americans, by providing legal mechanisms
to streamline the application process. Asian Americans make up only 5 percent of the country’s population. But they sponsor more
than a third of all family-based immigrants.
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) Chair Honda filed H.R. 2709, with other CAPAC members as co-sponsors.
The Senate had introduced a family reunification bill earlier. Senators Robert Menendez (NJ), Ted Kennedy (MA), Kirsten Gillibrand
(NY), and Charles Schumer (NY) filed the bill on May 20.
Surrounded by co-sponsors and advocates at the press conference held in Capitol before filing the bill, Honda said, “Our system has
not been updated in 20 years, separating spouses, children, siblings and their parents, who have played by the rules, for years, often
decades.”
Honda noted the economic benefit. “We are providing the American economy with new funds, in terms of remittances, which will
now remain in the US with reunited families instead of being sent home, that’s an extra $46 billion from Latin American in one year
alone. (Mexico received about $24 billion.) He added, “And we are comprehensive–making sure that all families, including same-sex
partners, are reunited.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          97/448


                                              POLITICS – UNPOPULAR

Combining the RFA with the UAFA has made the bill extremely unpopular in congress
On Top Magazine 8/1/2009: Americans Marry During Amsterdam Gay Pride.
http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4310&MediaType=1&Category=24
Last month, California Representative Michael Honda introduced the Reuniting Families Act, a comprehensive immigration reform
package that includes New York Representative Jerry Nadler's Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would allow gay
Americans to sponsor an immigrant partner for citizenship.
The decision to include the UAFA in the Reuniting Families Act has created a rift among immigration reform backers.
Both the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), major allies in
securing comprehensive immigration reform, decried the gay provisions.
“[The gay provisions are] a slap in the face to those of us who have fought for years for immigration reform,” Reverend Samuel
Rodriguez of the NHCLC told Politico.com.
The five newly married couples, now forced to live in exile, will join the chorus of bi-national gay couples and allies asking Congress
to pass gay-inclusive immigration reform.
“Hope is all we've got,” said New Yorker Patrick Decker, who married Stephan Hengst.
But even gay rights backers admit they'll have a steep incline to overcome.
“You got two very tough issues – the rights of same-sex couples and immigration,” openly gay Congressman Barney Frank, a
Democrat from Massachusetts, told the Washington Blade. “You put them in the same bill, and it becomes impossible. We just don't
have the votes for it.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                98/448


                       *** SMALL BUSINESSES COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            99/448


                                              SMALL BUSINESSES 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should give small businesses a tax credit for hiring their first
employee or for companies with fewer than 25 employees, adding new employees

Counterplan solves the economy through the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs
Rhonda Abrams (president of The Planning Shop, publisher of books for entrepreneurs) 2/1/2008: Strategies: Stimulate Small
Business. http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2008-01-25-stimulus_N.htm
Politicians of both parties are unanimous in calling for action to help improve economic conditions in the United States. Well, I've got
a better answer. If you want to stimulate the economy, stimulate small business. If we strengthen small business, we strengthen
America.
Here's my simple proposal: Give small businesses a tax credit for hiring their first employee or, for companies with fewer than 25
employees, adding new employees.
First, recognize that small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy. While news reports focus on Wall Street and Dow Jones
averages, in most small and midsize communities in the U.S., small business is the only business. More than half of all employees in
the United States are employed by small firms.
Proposals to give cash rebates to individuals are only the shortest of short-term measures, designed more to improve politicians' poll
numbers than the numbers on businesses' balance sheets. And tax incentives for huge corporations won't reach Main Street.
What we need is to put money directly in the bank accounts of small companies when they hire more employees.
Consider these statistics, all from the U.S. Census Bureau: Of the nearly 27 million businesses in the United States, what's the total
number of companies with more than 100 employees? Only slightly more than 100,000. Small businesses make up 99.7% of all
employer firms.
The majority of the nation's businesses actually have NO employees (think of all those self-employed consultants, hairdressers,
attorneys, plumbers, graphic designers). In 2005, there were more than 20 million non-employer businesses in the United States, with
total revenues closing in on a trillion dollars. Those numbers are probably higher now.
What would happen if we could stimulate even 1% of these non-employer businesses to hire their first employee? We'd create
200,000 new jobs. That's a huge number — 20% of all jobs created in 2007. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1,054,000
non-farm, private-sector jobs were created in 2007.)
On top of that, it's likely that many other new jobs would be created once these one-person businesses started to grow, now that they
have doubled their person power. Not to mention the boost to the economy from all those businesses buying new equipment, software,
office furniture and renting office space.
But it's hard to hire your first employee. It took me years before I was willing to face the burden of added paperwork, paying payroll
taxes, providing health insurance. Not to mention getting used to having someone else around. But my company could never have
grown if I was still working out of my dining room, all by myself.
Tax incentives could encourage one-person businesses to overcome those hurdles. If 2008 were the year they could get a one-time tax
credit for hiring an employee, the small business community would be sizzling with suggestions, advice and encouragement to those
who are on the brink of growth.
Let's also encourage small companies that already employ a few workers to expand by giving them a tax credit for adding new jobs.
With talk of a recession, most small employers are hesitant to expand their payroll. Small-business owners, even more than huge
corporations, hate laying anyone off. Instead, they put off hiring until there's a very good reason. A meaningful tax credit could be just
that incentive.
It's important to recognize that small companies need tax credits as a stimulus, not merely new deductions. (A tax credit is an amount
directly applied to reduce your tax liability or becomes a tax rebate if you do not have a liability; a deduction is less beneficial.)
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      100/448


                                              SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

Economic incentives solve – businesses need more capital to grow and hire more employees
Robert Bell 4/11/2009: Small Business Owners Face A Challenging Economy. http://impactnews.com/leander-cedar-park/local-
news/3992-small-business-owners-face-challenging-economy
Credit for small-business owners is “paramount,” said Larry Lucero, director of the small business development center at Texas State
University – San Marcos. The SBDC, which also has an office in Round Rock, covers a 12-county area and offers consultation and a
variety of services for entrepreneurs. “Lines of credit, loans and other types of financing need to be available so [businesses] can
continue to grow and hire people to do the job,” Lucero said. “That’s what creates economic vitality.”
Among big national banks, lending is down in large part because of the economic turmoil of the last 18 months.
“They’ve been very, very cautious about making any SBA loans, or any loans to small businesses for that matter,” he said.
“Everybody’s on pins and needles,” he said. “We’re waiting to see what’s going to happen in the credit markets, and [lenders] are
unwilling to stick their necks out if they feel like they’re going to be taking a significant risk.”
Small-business loans through Frost Bank are down slightly compared to recent years, but are steady overall, said Marvin Rickabaugh,
Austin region president for the bank. Frost makes SBA loans, and Rickabaugh said that although many borrowers are being more
cautious lately, people are still applying for loans.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         101/448


                                 *** INTEREST RATES COUNTERPLAN ***

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should change interest rates to create payment of negative interest
on bank reserves. Regulation will be placed so that the banks will not hoard excessive amounts of money.

Negative interest forces trickle-up style spending without actually causing inflation – it’s more insulated from political
controversy than the plan.
Tyler Cowen, Prof Economics @ George Mason, 8/1/2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/economy/02view.html)
BECAUSE fiscal stimulus has not yet been a striking success, perhaps it’s time to consider new monetary remedies for the economy.
That is the argument of Prof. Scott Sumner, an economist at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., who is little known outside academic
circles but whose views have been spreading, thanks to his blog, TheMoneyIllusion (blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/).
Professor Sumner proposes that the Federal Reserve make a firm commitment to raising expectations of price inflation to 2 to 3
percent annually. In his view, policy makers in Washington are doing too much with fiscal policy — overspending and running excess
deficits — and not doing enough on the monetary side. While his views are controversial, they are based on some assumptions that are
not. It is commonly agreed among economists that deflation brings layoffs and sluggish investment. Yet, energy price shocks aside,
we have been seeing downward pressure on prices. Futures markets and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities — more precisely, the
spread between the yield on TIPS and traditional securities — suggest current expectations that inflation will remain well under 1
percent. Economists generally agree that this is not ideal, and Professor Sumner urges the Fed to try especially hard to overcome the
deflationary pressures. But how would the Fed accomplish this feat? This is where his recommendations get interesting. The Fed has
already taken some unconventional monetary measures to stimulate the economy, but they haven’t been entirely effective. Professor
Sumner says the central bank needs to take a different approach: it should make a credible commitment to spurring and maintaining a
higher level of inflation, promising to use newly created money to buy many kinds of financial assets if necessary. And it should even
pay negative interest on bank reserves, as the Swedish central bank has started to do. In essence, negative interest rates are a penalty
placed on banks that sit on their money instead of lending it. Much to the chagrin of Professor Sumner, the Fed has been practicing the
opposite policy recently, by paying positive interest on bank reserves — essentially, inducing banks to hoard money. The Fed’s
balance sheet need not swell to accomplish these aims. Once people believe that inflation is coming, they will be willing to spend
more money. In other words, if the Fed announces a sufficient willingness to undergo extreme measures to create price inflation, it
may not actually have to do so. Professor Sumner’s views differ from the monetarism of Milton Friedman by emphasizing
expectations rather than any particular measure of the money supply. The Keynesian critique of this remedy is that printing more
money won’t stimulate the economy because uncertainty has put us in a “liquidity trap,” which means that the new money will be
hoarded rather than spent. Professor Sumner responds that inflating the currency is one step that just about every government or
central bank can take. Even if success is not guaranteed, it seems that we ought to be trying harder. Arguably, we can live with 2 or 3
percent inflation, especially if it stems the drop in employment. Consistently, Professor Sumner argues that the Fed should have been
more aggressive with monetary policy in the summer of 2008, before the economy started its downward spiral. Somewhat tongue in
cheek, he once wrote on his blog: “Like a broken clock the monetary cranks are right twice a century; 1933, and today.” It may all
sound too simple to be true, but has the status quo been so good as to silence all doubts? Many advocates expected that the $775
billion allocation to fiscal stimulus would be followed rapidly by generous funding for health care and other reforms. But at the
moment, the American public, rightly or wrongly, is blanching at higher government spending and higher taxes. In contrast, a Fed
stance in favor of mild price inflation need not require higher taxes or larger budget deficits.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              102/448


                                                 SOLVENCY – ECONOMY

CP solves trickle-up – incentivizes spending
Greg Mankiw, Prof Economics @ Harvard, 4/19/2009 http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/04/observations-on-negative-interest-
rates.html
5. If we want to prop up aggregate demand to promote full employment, what is the alternative to monetary policy aimed at producing
negative real interest rates? Fiscal policy. Essentially, the private sector is saying it wants to save. Fiscal policy can say, "No you don't.
If you try to save, we will dissave on your behalf via budget deficits." That fiscal dissaving would push equilibrium interest rates
upward. But is that policy really welfare-improving compared to allowing interest rates to fall into the negative region? If people are
feeling poorer and want to save for the future, why should we stop them? Unless we think their additional saving is irrational, it seems
best to try to funnel that saving into investment with the appropriate interest rate. And given the available investment opportunities,
that interest rate might well be negative.


Negative interest rates would stabilize the economy
Susan Woodward (Former Chief Economist of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Robert Hall, Senior Fellow @ Hoover
Institution of Economics) 2009 http://woodwardhall.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/the-fed-needs-to-make-a-policy-statement
Raising the reserve interest rate is a contractionary measure. A higher interest rate on reserves makes banks more likely to hold
reserves rather than increasing lending. The Fed’s decision to raise the reserve rate from zero to 75 basis points just as the economy
entered a sharp contraction in activity is utterly inexplicable. Fortunately, the Fed lowered the reserve rate subsequently, but the
continuation of a positive reserve rate in today’s economy is equally inexplicable. Some economists have proposed that the Fed
charge banks for holding reserves, an expansionary policy worth considering. With the Fed funds rate at around 15 basis points, it
would take a charge to restore the differential that drives banks to lend rather than hold reserves. Were the Fed to charge for reserves,
they would become the hot potatoes that they were in the past, when the reserve rate was zero and the Fed funds rate 4 or 5 percent.
Banks would expand lending to try not to hold the hot potatoes and the economy would expand. There is no basis for the claim that the
Fed has lost its ability to steer the economy. (However, the Fed would have to go to Congress to get this power, as it did to get the
power to pay positive interest on reserves.) The basic point emerging from the analysis of the role of the reserve interest rate is simple:
The margin between the Fed funds rate and the reserve rate is a potent new tool for stabilizing the economy. When the Fed wants to
expand, it should raise the margin. In today’s economy, this would call for a negative reserve rate, that is, a charge to banks for
holding reserves. When the time comes to move to a tighter policy, the Fed should lower the margin. At that time, the Fed would raise
the reserve rate for two reason: first to reduce the margin and second to follow increases in market interest rates that will occur in a
recovery.

CP is key to stimulus because the fed has to look consistent with monetary policy – prefer empirical data
Glenn Rudebusch, Senior VP @ Federal Reserve of San Francisco, 5/25/2009
(http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-17.html)
The estimated Taylor rule can also be used in conjunction with economic forecasts to provide a rough benchmark for calibrating the
appropriate stance of monetary policy going forward. The dashed lines in Figure 1 show the latest forecasts for unemployment and
inflation provided by FOMC participants—the Federal Reserve presidents and governors. (The dashed lines are quarterly linear
interpolations of the median forecasts in FOMC, 2009.) Like many private forecasters, FOMC participants foresee persistently high
unemployment and low inflation as the most likely outcome over the next few years. The recommended future policy setting of the
funds rate based on the estimated historical policy rule and these economic forecasts is given as the dashed line in Figure 2. This
dashed line shows that, in order to deliver a degree of future monetary stimulus that is consistent with its past behavior, the FOMC
would have to reduce the funds rate to -5% by the end of this year—well below its lower bound of zero. Alternative specifications of
empirical Taylor rules, described in Rudebusch (2006), also generally recommend a negative funds rate.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           103/448


                                            AT: HOUSEHOLD HOARDING

They’d invest in other positive assets – bigger return for the poor
Matt Nolan, Economist @ Infometrics, 4/23/2009 (http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/04/23/from-a-negative-ocr-to-negative-interest-rates/)
If the return goes negative for banks they may just pass it on to households who will “horde currency”. However, I have to ask – will
household’s just hold currency as savings? Maybe they will go out and buy bonds or gold or copper – or any sort of durable asset
which could double as savings. As long as the asset holder will spend some of the money – then the final impact of the negative OCR
will still be stimulatory (either for prices or output depending on your view of the world). Its like a hot potato situation – banks don’t
want to lose money on reserves so they don’t take deposits and charge a negative interest rate, households don’t want to accept a
negative interest rate so they buy assets driving up asset prices, the ex-asset holders have cash which they spend. Now it is possible
that households won’t do this, and they will put all the money under their bed – but I just don’t buy it. Not when there are other
savings vehicles that will offer a positive rate of return.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                         104/448


                       *** MICRO LOAN COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      105/448


                                                  MICRO LOANS 1NC

Text: The United States federal government should fully fund a comprehensive micro loan program available to all
people in the United States

Micro loans return 100 percent on the original investment, increase employment and solve the economic crisis
Voice of America “Nobel Laureate Announces Growth of Micro-Loan Program” 12 aug 2009
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-12-voa59.cfm
Global recognition including the Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom has not kept Muhammad Yunus from
his main goal - getting people out of poverty with the help of small loan-interest loans. The Nobel Laureate announced that his
banking organization, Grameen America, has issued micro-loans to 1000 low-income borrowers in the United States.
Muhammad Yunus says he is on a mission to make the financial system accessible to every human being on the planet, whether
they reside in a village in his native Bangladesh, or in the financial capital of the world - New York City. Hours before
receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House Wednesday, Yunus told
reporters in Washington that credit should be a human right available to anyone who needs it. "Now we can build a new kind
of financial system, a financial system which can work just like we do in Jackson Heights, giving people who are never able to
open even a bank account, forget about taking a loan," said Muhammad Yunus. Yunus began giving small personal loans to
women in Bangladesh in the 1970's. The villagers eventually paid him back with interest, and this money was put back into the
system, to provide loans to more low-income women. Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in 2006, and his
micro-lending program has launched into a worldwide movement. Since January of last year, Yunus' Grameen America has lent
over $2 million to U.S. women at or below the poverty line, allowing them to start or expand a small business. The loans are
low-interest and collateral free, and so far, Yunus says they have been paid back at a rate of nearly 100-percent, despite a
recession. The Nobel Laureate says his locally-based micro-credit programs are unaffected by the global economic crisis.
"It's tied to real economy, not paper based economy where you create a fantasy world of finance, and that's what created
the crisis, so we don't belong to the fantasy world," he said. Yunus says micro-credit programs are especially vital at a time
when unemployment rates are rising. He encourages governments to give people options that include the ability to become self-
sufficient with the help of small, low-interest loans. "They will build their own employment and in the process they will
inspire other people that look I can handle myself, because I am an experienced person, I am a skilled person, why should I be
sitting around and taking government money and live my life," said Yunus. Yunus is taking this message and his micro-lending
services to other parts of the U.S., as well as China, hoping to help lift more people out of poverty.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                  106/448


                 *** BAN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          107/448


                                            ELECTORAL COLLEGE 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should abolish the electoral college system for choosing the
President and replace it with a direct popular election model

The Electoral College undermines democracy-destroys idea of majority rule and decreases participation in elections – WE
CONTROL YOUR INTERNAL LINK – THREE REASONS
Jamin Raskin (Professor of Law Director of the Law and Government Program) 2007: “Deformed Reform”
http://www.slate.com/id/2172700/
It's hardly news at this point that, as it works today, the Electoral College undermines American democracy. It does so in three
fundamental ways: First, it betrays the principle of majority rule, threatening every four years to deliver the White House to the
popular-vote loser. Second, it reduces the general election contest to a matter of what happens in Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other
swing states, leaving most Americans (who live in forsaken "red" and "blue" states) on the sidelines. This in turn depresses turnout
and helps give us one of the worst rates of voter participation on earth. Third, because of its proven pliability, the Electoral College
invites partisan operatives, legislators, secretaries of state and even Supreme Court justices to engage in constant strategic mischief
and manipulation at the state level.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                        108/448


                                                        SOLVENCY – DEMOCRACY

Abolishing Electoral College is the first key step towards democracy—Now states more valuable than individuals
Daily Collegian 3/26/2009 “Electoral college an outdated system, ”
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/03/26/electoral_college_an_outdated.aspx
The outdated Electoral College system could be on its way out as the way to select the president of the United State if Pennsylvania,
among other swing states, rightly enacts a new bill. "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular
Vote Act" needs to be enacted by the state legislatures representing the states with a majority of the electoral votes. The change would
be the right step to giving equal value to every American vote. Under the current system, the vote of a resident in New Hampshire,
which holds a small number of electoral votes, could potentially be less valuable than the vote of a California resident. For the United
States to claim it is a true democracy, the vote of every person should hold the same weight. The Electoral College is based on
tradition, when the leaders of our country worried that the residents of the new nation couldn't be trusted to elect the leader without a
safeguard. Times have changed, and it is time for the individual vote to be more important than the state. Currently, the states'
electoral votes are more valuable than the individual, leading to skewed campaigning as candidates rally swing states that have little
influence on national policy. A popular vote would emphasize the individual over the state. Also, any system that allows the winner of
the popular vote to still lose because of one state's votes is a flawed system. Look to the 2004 election of former President George W.
Bush as an example. One concern of a popular vote system would be the loss of the importance of small towns and low-population
areas. Centre County was blessed with visits from nearly all of the major players in the 2008 election, including President Barack
Obama. A popular vote system may downplay the importance of an area like State College and emphasize the major metropolitan
areas.However, less campaigning in State College would be an acceptable loss for the gain that could be obtained through the popular
vote system. The individual vote is the most important aspect of democracy. To call ourselves a true democracy, we must
emphasize the individual. Pennsylvania, as a swing state, has the opportunity to lead the charge with a change for the selection of a
new president. Giving up some power as a state would be a small sacrifice to improve the voting system and become a true
democracy.

Abolishing Electoral College key to democracy—small states overrepresented
New York Times 2004: “Abolish the Electoral College,” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html)
When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all
practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both
parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah,
superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every
vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all
31 of the state's electoral votes. The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even
though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which
the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority,
distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement
for direct election of the president. The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has
been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in
other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors
small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be
entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five. The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons
enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential
campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We
are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing
ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida,
are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as
Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to
vote. Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong.
Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to
persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for
the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the
case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one
for California's 35.5 million. The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the
interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are
already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than
making every vote count.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            109/448


                                              SOLVENCY – DEMOCRACY

Electoral college undermines democracy-prevents basic decision making by the people
The Daily Kent Stater 2000, (no author cited), The Daily Kent Stater, “The Electoral College Undemocractic and Unnecesary”, 11-8-
00, pg online @ http://www.stater.kent.edu/stories_old/00fall/110900/O1108elecolleegemediacw-1.html
In his remarks regarding yesterday's election, Vice President Al Gore left many mixed messages regarding the role of the Electoral
College in this nation's electoral process. Yesterday, he seemed to insist that the Constitution be followed, but also seemed to suggest
that a system in which the popular vote winner did not become president would not embolden confidence in people of their
democracy. Indeed his remarks were as foggy as Kent was yesterday morning when residents awoke to find that the 43rd president
had not yet been chosen. The Gore and Bush campaigns also refused to comment on the hypothetical situations regarding the Electoral
College and popular vote. But one thing has become clear after the events of the last 48 hours: The Electoral College must be
dissolved. The college was created because the framers of the Constitution did not entirely trust the people to elect the president.
Instead, electors were chosen to affirm or reject the people's vote. When you vote for president, you are actually voting for electors
chosen by the two candidates, not the candidates themselves. Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes based upon the
number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives. Because the electors for each state are awarded on a winner-
take-all basis, it is possible that a candidate could garner a majority or plurality of the popular vote but lose the election because they
did not get enough electoral votes. This has not been an issue in America in 100 years. Unfortunately, with the margin of votes
between Gore and Bush at less than 200,000, and the results in Florida which will tip the balance in the Electoral College, the issue
must be addressed. Americans cannot and should not have confidence in a system that allows the loser to become president. In the
21st century people must be trusted to elect their own leaders. Congress' first action when it convenes in 2001 should be to pass a
constitutional amendment ensuring that the popular vote winner will be president. The states, three-fourths of which must ratify the
amendment for it to go into effect, should move swiftly to do so. In the meantime, it would be foolish, given the follies in election
projections committed by the news media last night, to predict or speculate on who will win either the Electoral College or the popular
vote. But let this be said: If it does come down to a case of the loser in the popular vote winning in the Electoral College, that man, if
he has any honor and truly believes in democracy, must ask his electors to throw the election to his opponent. The people deserve no
less than a right and true verdict. The editorial board, appointed by the editor and listed above, is the institutional voice of the Stater.

Electoral college harms Democracy—votes are worth more from more populated states
Jason La Meire (a UK international student majoring in media and culture) 2005. “University without a pub unbelievable,” Spartan
Daily http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2005/09/27/Ae/University.Without.A.Pub.Unbelievable-
1497726.shtml)
I can vividly remember the amazement I felt eight years ago watching the drama of the disputed U.S. election play out on my TV
screen, as a 14-year-old back home in Britain. Amazed, not at the closeness of the race, but at the U.S. interpretation of democracy.
"You mean, more people in the U.S. voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush, but because Florida has this many Electoral College
votes, Bush wins?" I thought democracy was built on the notion that everyone's vote counts and furthermore, everyone's vote is equal.
Indeed, the Cambridge Dictionary definition of democracy states that it is "the belief in freedom and equality between people." Well,
the Electoral College system means that an individual's vote from a less-populated state carries more weight than someone's vote in a
larger state, such as California. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California had 12.2 percent of the U.S. population in 2006.
However, with 55 Electoral College votes, the Golden State only has 10.2 percent of the Electoral College total. That is not the only
problem with this system. With certain States almost being guaranteed to go to a particular party - California to the Democrats and
Texas to the Republicans, for example - there is little incentive for people in these states to go out and vote. There was a get out and
vote campaign on the SJSU campus last week. Well, as a Californian, what's the point? Go gain residency status in Ohio or
Pennsylvania and maybe your vote will have some meaning in future elections. Not only is there little motivation for people to vote in
safe states, but there is also small incentive for the presidential candidates to campaign there. As they should, McCain and Obama are
concentrating their campaigns on the swing states that will decide the election. This effectively isolates the rest of the nation from
first-hand experience of the campaign. There is yet another sinister twist to the U.S. democratic system, one that I'm sure most
Americans aren't even aware of. The Electoral College way of voting leaves open the possibility - more so than that of the popular
vote - for a tie to occur. The BBC Web site last week posted a list of scenarios in which McCain and Obama could finish level on 269
Electoral College votes. The striking thing is that it is not as unlikely as you would think. But that is not as arresting as what happens
if a tie does occur. In that scenario, the next U.S. president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with each state getting
one vote and a majority being decisive.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            110/448


                                                AT: FEDERALISM TURN

Not key to protect states-no such thing as state interests and congress checks
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
 It protects state interests! States don't really have coherent "interests," so it's hard to figure out exactly what this means. (Is there
something, for instance, that all New Yorkers want purely by virtue of being New Yorkers?) Under the current system, presidents
rarely campaign on local issues anyways -- when George Edwards analyzed campaign speeches from 1996 and 2000, he found only a
handful that even mentioned local issues. And that's as it should be. We have plenty of Congressmen and Senators who cater to local
concerns. The president should take a broader view of the national interest, not beholden to any one state or locale.

Not key to federalism-states don’t need protection and current system is worse for federalism
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
It's consistent with federalism! All history students recall that the Great Compromise of 1787 created the House, which gives power to
big populous states, and the Senate, which favors small states. The compromise was just that, a compromise meant to keep delegates
happy and the Constitution Convention in motion. Nevertheless, the idea that small states need protection has somehow become
legitimated over the years, and is used to support the electoral college -- which gives small states disproportionate power in electing a
president. But what, pray tell, do small states need protection from? It's not as if big states are all ganging up on Wyoming. The
fiercest rivalries have always been between regions, like the South and North in the 1800s, or between big states, like California and
Texas today. Furthermore, most small states are ignored in presidential campaigns, so it's not clear that the current system is protecting
anything.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            111/448


                                                AT: HURTS MINORITIES

Not key to fairness for minorities-contributes to the problem by allowing the states they live in to be ignored
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college

It protects minorities! Some college buffs have argued that, since ethnic minorities are concentrated in politically competitive states,
the electoral college forces candidates to pay more attention to minorities. This sounds great, but it's wholly untrue. Most African-
Americans, for instance, are concentrated in the South, which has rarely been a "swing" region. Hispanic voters, meanwhile, largely
reside in California, Texas, and New York, all uncompetitive states. It's true that Cubans in Florida have benefited wonderfully from
the electoral college, but they represent an extremely narrow interest group. All other minority voters have less incentive to vote. It's
no surprise that the electoral college has often enabled presidential candidates to ignore minorities in various states -- in the 19th
century, for instance, voting rights were poorly enforced in non-competitive states.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        112/448


                                               AT: COHENION TURNS

Not key to cohesion-WORST CASE SCENARIO popluar election ends up as bad as current system and factions already exist
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
It makes presidential races more cohesive! In an August column for Newsweek, George Will argued that the electoral college
somehow makes presidential elections more cohesive. Again, fine in principle, untrue in practice. Will first suggests that the system
forces candidates to win a broad swathe of states, rather than just focusing on the most populous regions. But even if that happened,
how is that worse than candidates focusing on a few random swing states? Or take Will's claim that the electoral college system
prevents "factions" from "uniting their votes across state lines." What? Factions already exist -- white male voters vote Republican,
African-Americans vote Democrat; evangelicals vote Republican, atheists vote Democrat. If our polarized country is a concern, it has
little to do with the electoral college.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         113/448


                                               AT: LEGITIMACY TURNS

Not key to legitimacy-attempt to mislead voters just proves how unfair the system is and no link between electoral votes and
strength in congress
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
It gives legitimacy to the winner! Finally, Will argues that the electoral college strengthens or legitimizes the winner. For example,
Woodrow Wilson won only 41.8 percent of the popular vote, but his 81.9 percent electoral vote victory "produced a strong
presidency." This suggests that voters are fools and that the electoral vote total somehow obscures the popular vote total. (If a
candidate gets 45 percent of the popular vote, voters aren't going to think he got more than that just because he got 81 percent of the
electoral vote total. And even if they do, do we really want a system whose aim is to mislead voters about election results?)
Furthermore, there's no real correlation between a strong electoral vote showing and a strong presidency. George H.W. Bush received
426 electoral votes, while Harry Truman received only 303 in 1948 and George W. Bush a mere 271 in 2000. Yet the latter two were
undeniably "stronger" presidents in their dealings with Congress. There's also no evidence that an electoral landslide creates a
"mandate" for change. The landslides in 1984 and 1972 didn't give Reagan or Nixon a mandate for much of anything -- indeed, those
two presidents got relatively little done in their second terms.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                  114/448


                                                                 AT: RECOUNT TURNS

Popular election actually decreases the cance of recounts
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
Direct elections would be a disaster Even after all the pro-college arguments have come unraveled, college advocates often insist on digging in their heels and saying that a direct
election would be even worse. They're still wrong. Here are the two main arguments leveled against direct elections: 1. The recounts would kill us! It's true, a nationwide recount
would be more nightmarish than, say, tallying up all the hanging chads in Florida. At the same time, we'd be less likely to see recounts in a direct election,
since the odds that the popular election would be within a slim enough margin of error is smaller than the odds that a "swing" state like
Florida would need a recount. Under a direct election, since it usually takes many more votes to sway a race (as opposed to a mere 500 in Florida), there
is less incentive for voter fraud, and less reason for candidates to think a recount will change the election. But set aside these arguments for a
second and ask: why do so many people fear the recount? If it's such a bad idea to make sure that every vote is accurately tallied, then why do we
even have elections in the first place?
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            115/448


                                              AT: THIRD PARTIES TURN

Third parties exist now and popular vote would most likely decrease their influence
Bradford Plumer (assistant editor at The New Republic) 2004: “The Indefensible Electoral College”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/indefensible-electoral-college
2. Third parties would run amok! The ultimate argument against the electoral college is that it would encourage the rise of third
parties. It might. But remember, third parties already play a role in our current system, and have helped swing the election at least four
times in the last century -- in 1912, 1968, 1992 and 2000. Meanwhile, almost every other office in the country is filled by direct
election, and third parties play an extremely small role in those races. There are just too many social and legal obstacles blocking the
rise of third parties. Because the Democratic and Republican parties tend to be sprawling coalitions rather than tightly-knit
homogenous groups, voters have every incentive to work "within the system". Likewise, in a direct election, the two parties would be
more likely to rally their partisans and promote voter turnout, which would in turn strengthen the two-party system. And if all else
fails, most states have laws limiting third party ballot access anyways. Abolishing the electoral college won't change that. It's official:
The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in
reality. And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the
electoral college!
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            116/448


                                          POLITICS – POPULAR (PUBLIC)

Majority in favor changing the Electoral College--it’s imperially undemocratic
Tom Curry (political correspondent for msnbc) 2008: “Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?” MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27283314/)
Minnesota, for instance, gets 10 electors. If Republican candidate John McCain wins the most votes in Minnesota on Nov. 4, the slate
of 10 Minnesota McCain electors is chosen. All but two states (Maine and Nebraska) use the winner-take-all system. This means that
the candidate who gets the most popular votes in a state gets all of its electoral votes. The next president will be the candidate who
gets at least 270 of the total 538 electors. The system can be idiosyncratic. Four times in the nation’s history, the winner of the largest
number of popular votes did not win the largest number of electoral votes, and therefore did not become president. It happened in
2000, when Al Gore got more popular votes, but lost the election to George W. Bush. It also happened in: 1824, when popular vote
winner Andrew Jackson lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams. 1876, when Samuel Tilden lost to Rutherford B. Hayes. And
1888, when Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison. A relic of the early republic The system is a relic of the early days of the
republic when electors were supposed to be independent agents exercising their judgment in choosing a presidential candidate from a
list of several contenders. Today, electors are party loyalists who almost always vote for their party’s nominee. On Friday, a group of
legal scholars, political scientists, and systems specialists gathered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a conference on
the Electoral College. Their focus? How to better engineer the system. Scrapping the electoral vote system would likely require a
constitutional amendment since the Constitution itself created the electoral system (Article II, section 1). But a group called National
Popular Vote says it has found another way. So far, it has persuaded four Democratic-controlled legislatures (in Maryland, Illinois,
Hawaii, and New Jersey) to pass a law which commits those states to give their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular
vote. The accord takes effect once states with a combined 270 electoral votes agree to it. The states would pledge to award their
electoral votes to the popular vote winner even if he or she had not been the majority choice in their state. Take Maryland as an
example. Say 80 percent of voters in that state cast their ballots for the Democratic presidential candidate. But if a Republican
candidate wins the national popular vote, under the state law, Maryland's 10 electoral votes would go to that candidate.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                         117/448


                       *** CONFERENCE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         118/448


                                                   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

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 21st 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       119/448


                                                SOLVES DEMOCRACY

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                            120/448


                       *** NATIVE GAMING COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                      121/448

                                                         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.

And the counterplan solves 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                         122/448


                                                           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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          123/448


                                     SOLVENCY – SELF DETERMINATION

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           124/448


                                           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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                    125/448


                       *** CEDAW COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             126/448


                                                               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).
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        127/448


                                            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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                     128/448


                                                       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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          129/448


                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            130/448


                                           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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          131/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      132/448


                                                   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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        133/448


                                     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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        134/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          135/448


                                                 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       136/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                            137/448


                       *** TRIBAL COURTS COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          138/448


                                                  TRIBAL COURTS 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should grant tribal governments jurisdiction over crimes committed
by non-Indians on reservations

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvecy:

(__) Self Determination
Criminal jurisdiction solves
Kevin Washburn, member of the Chickasaw Nation and associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, 1-21-2008,
[http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17455 Misplaced Jurisdiction Justice in Indian Country needs an overhaul High
Country News]
WASHBURN: In 1978, the Supreme Court said tribes don’t have jurisdiction over non-Indians on Indian reservations. HCN: They
had jurisdiction (over non-Indians on the reservations) before then? WASHBURN: Yes. During that century they still had jurisdiction.
Congress acted to give the feds jurisdiction, but it didn’t take away tribal jurisdiction. Tribes never negotiated that away in treaties.
The Suquamish Reservation was having their festival, and two non-Indians were arrested, one for drunk driving and one for assaulting
a police officer. The Supreme Court said summarily that the tribes don’t have jurisdiction over non-Indians, and that was news to the
tribes because they had routinely exercised jurisdiction. Suddenly, jurisdiction is no longer territorial and geographical, but it’s a
question of race or tribal membership of the perpetrator and/or the victim. That limited tribes’ authority dramatically. HCN: Would it
be correct to say that’s one of the reasons there’s so much drug trafficking on Indian reservations? WASHBURN:In a sense. Some
people perceive that reservations are lawless places. They are kind of lawless because people are unclear about jurisdiction. State law
enforcement officials often think, "Aw, that’s the feds’ problem. That’s on an Indian reservation." Or, "That’s the tribe’s problem."
(Thanks to a 1950s law, some states have jurisdiction over all crimes on Indian reservations.) HCN:Could you explain the effects on
tribal sovereignty and tribal self-determination? What are the effects on surrounding communities, and would changing the system
benefit the wider community? WASHBURN: Let me start with the last part first. One of the things suggested in pending legislation is
cross-deputization of everyone involved in law enforcement in Indian Country. If state officers get cross-deputized by tribal
authorities, and tribal officers get cross-deputized by county or state authorities, then suddenly it doesn’t matter which cop pulls up to
the scene of a crime. Either can handle it. Federal police officers and state police officers tend to be OK with this. It’s only when you
get into the political realms that there are disputes. Cooperation is one of the things (Sen. Byron) Dorgan, (D-N.D., chairman of the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee) suggested in his concept paper for an Indian Country crime bill. (Sen. Dorgan’s concept paper will
form the basis of legislation on law enforcement in Indian Country expected to be introduced next year.) Another thing he suggested is
that we do a better job of collecting data. Can we figure out where the crimes occurred so we’ll have a better sense of whether the
reservation communities are really worse than nearby communities? The data isn’t good enough to be able to determine that because
no one keeps track of exactly (where a crime occurred). So now the self-determination question. Most everything that Congress has
done in the past 30 years has been designed to further tribal self-government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs no longer runs the schools
on Indian reservations. Many tribes now run their own hospital instead of the Indian Health Service. So we’ve had dramatic
improvements in schools and in health care and many other areas in which tribal self-determination has been pursued. Ironically, we
have not pursued self-determination in criminal justice. I would argue that criminal justice is the most important place for self-
determination because a criminal code and the processes we use for enforcing that code are key places where communities define
themselves. When you decide this is what is illegal in your community, you’re saying, "This is who we are as a community." That’s key to
self-determination. In our criminal codes, we order our moral values and say, "If you violate these moral values, that violation is so
serious that we’re going to put you in jail." There’s no stronger way to protect your moral code. That is one of the things we’ve denied
Indian tribes. Congress or the courts are telling tribes what their values are and how they must define themselves. My argument is
we’ve got self-determination in the environmental laws and health care and education, but self-determination as to crime is far more
key - far more important than any of those things - if self-determination is the process of defining a community and letting a
community say who it is. When I say self-determination, I don’t mean we necessarily need to restore tribal criminal jurisdiction over
non-Indians. Self-determination is a community defining for its internal community how people deal with one another. Tribes don’t
necessarily need jurisdiction over non-Indians. Most crimes are matters for the local community. From a good-government standpoint,
it’s just not sensible to have a foreign community, the federal government, trying reservation crimes. We’ve taken some of the most
valuable tools to address serious problems on Indian reservations away from tribal leaders.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            139/448


                                     SOLVENCY – SELF DETERMINATION

Lack of Tribal Court Jurisdiction over non-Indians destroys tribal sovereignty
McNeil,Candidate for J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law, 2008
[ Stephen R., “In a Class by Themselves: A Proposal to Incorporate Tribal Courts into the Federal Court System Without
Compromising Their Unique Status As "Domestic Dependent Nations"”, Winter 2008, 65 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 283, Lexis]
With the growth of tribal n1 gaming on Native American reservations, the potential for lawsuits between tribal members and non-
Indians increases dramatically. Even if the tribes do not operate a casino, the increasing mobility of American culture provides
more opportunities for interactions between tribal members and non-Indians. Whether a breach of a construction contract, n3 an
alleged assault, n4 or a simple traffic accident in Indian country, n5 the opposing parties must have a judicial forum available to
resolve the dispute. While litigants often have three available judicial forums from which to choose, tribal courts receive much
less respect than corresponding state and federal courts. n6 In an attempt to level the playing field, modern congressional policies
attempt to promote tribal governments and court systems. n7 Unfortunately, the law concerning the extent of tribal court
jurisdiction remains vastly unsettled. In fact, [*286] non-Indians challenge the exercise of tribal court jurisdiction so frequently
that the Supreme Court had to develop a procedural mechanism to prevent non-Indians from completely avoiding the available
tribal court systems. n8 Despite federal efforts to promote tribal sovereignty through the increased use of tribal courts, Congress
has taken few steps to establish a coherent role for the tribal courts within the federal system. n9 With little guidance from
Congress, the Supreme Court has asserted its role in the development of Indian policy, much to the regret of tribal advocates. n10
By drastically limiting the extent of tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians, the Supreme Court has delivered devastating blows
to tribal sovereignty.

Tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians is key to sovereignty
McNeil,Candidate for J.D., Washington and Lee University School of Law, 2008
[ Stephen R., “In a Class by Themselves: A Proposal to Incorporate Tribal Courts into the Federal Court System Without
Compromising Their Unique Status As "Domestic Dependent Nations"”, Winter 2008, 65 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 283, Lexis]
Currently, tribal courts cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non- Indians. n246 In addition, while tribal courts can exercise
criminal jurisdiction over Indians, the Major Crimes Act and the ICRA severely limit the extent of that jurisdiction. n247 Because
Indian tribes retain some of their inherent sovereignty, however, their prosecutions fit within the Dual Sovereign exception to
double jeopardy. n248 As it exists, this system provides very little protection of tribal sovereignty. To secure the greatest amount
of tribal sovereignty, tribal court criminal jurisdiction should be expanded. More specifically, tribal court criminal jurisdiction
should extend to all violations of tribal law not covered by the Major Crimes Act. One of the key aspects of sovereignty is a
nation's ability to enforce its own laws within its borders. n249 By allowing tribal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all
persons who violate its laws, tribal sovereignty would dramatically increase. In addition, by allowing the Indian tribes to enforce
their own laws, the burden on federal prosecutors would decrease because they would not need to worry about prosecuting minor
crimes that occur in Indian country.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                             140/448


                       *** GLOBAL POVERTY COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                          141/448


                                                                          GLOBAL POVERTY CP 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should spend 150 billion dollars each year until the year 2015 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.

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 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 the rich world has never 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 destination, the promises of land, food, water, health care, and other provisions went unfulfilled, and thousands suffered
                         This doesn’t mean Ethiopia should be denied foreign aid; it simply suggests the aid needs to be carefully
from severe malnutrition and disease.
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 were easily filling their brown clay
water jugs there instead of making the two-hour trek to the nearest river. Those who previously survived on water from a nearby pond they
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-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.” Most experts now believe that to be
effective, foreign 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 privatization—and toward helping poor countries develop their own
particular home-grown solutions. Harvard economists Rodrik and Ricardo Hausmann, for example, are 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, geographic obstacles, or chronic conflict. The wealthy developed nations can and should play an important
role—first by eliminating their own trade barriers that make it impossible for poor nations in Africa, for example, to sell textiles to the United States; and second,
by sharing technology, promoting democracy, and assisting carefully 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            142/448


                                        SOLVENCY – GLOBAL POVERTY

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                             143/448


                                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         144/448


                                                    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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          145/448


                                                     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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                     146/448


                       *** GHITMO COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          147/448


                                                      GHITMO CP 1NC

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

Counterplan solves soft power through international perception
Dianne Feinstein. 1.6.09. “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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          148/448


                                                  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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        149/448


                                           SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

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?
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            150/448


                                             SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER

Closing Gitmo is a symbolic gesture that restores other nations’ confidence, restoring soft power
Prieto and Waxman. 2.6.09. 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           151/448


                                              SOLVENCY – 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.


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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          152/448


                               SOLVENCY – HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            153/448


                                  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. 7.7.09. “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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          154/448


                                             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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                            Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                 155/448


                                                                    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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                    156/448


                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                        157/448


                       *** READINESS COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          158/448


                                                   READINESS CP 1NC

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

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          159/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                              160/448


                       *** CONJUGAL VISITS COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         161/448


                                               CONJUGAL VISITS 1NC

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

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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           162/448


                                             SOLVENCY – PRISON RAPE

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              163/448


                                    AT: RAPE IS ABOUT POWER NOT 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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           164/448


                                                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
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                     165/448


                   *** CLEAR THE SKIES INITIATIVE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              166/448

                                        CLEAR THE SKIES INITIATIVE 1NC

Text – The United States federal government should implement the Clear Skies Initiative. Enforcement guaranteed.

The counterplan competes through the net benefit.

Clear Skies solve failed status quo air pollution policies
JAMES L. CONNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, “CLEAR SKIES ACT,” CQ
Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 926 words, HOUSE ENERGY AND
COMMERCE, lexis

Clear Skies will significantly expand the Clean Air Act's most innovative and successful program in order to cut power plant pollution
of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and, for the first time, mercury by an unprecedented 70 percent in two phases. These cuts in
pollution will provide substantial health benefits, prolonging the lives of thousands of Americans annually, and improving the
conditions of life for hundreds of thousands of people with asthma, other respiratory illnesses, and heart disease . As the son of a
pediatrician who is also a chronic asthmatic, my passion for this policy is deeply personal. Clear Skies will produce these health
benefits with greater certainty by imposing a mandatory, permanent, multi-pollutant cap on emissions from more than 1300 power
plants nationwide, reducing pollution by as much as 9 million tons annually at full implementation. Utilities will achieve this by
spending more than 52 billion dollars to install, operate and maintain new, primarily clean coal pollution abatement technology on
both old and new power plants. Clear Skies will require only a few dozen government officials to operate and will assure compliance
through a system that is easy to monitor and easy to enforce. Accordingly, the Clear Skies cap and trade approach will give our states
the most powerful, efficient and proven tool available for meeting our new, tough, health-based air quality standards for fine particles
and ozone. At the end of last year, EPA completed the process of informing over 500 counties that they either do not meet or that they
contribute to another county not meeting the new standards. That relatively straightforward act has now triggered a very complex
process that will lead later this year to a frenzy of intrastate negotiation and conflict, interstate negotiation and conflict, federal-state
negotiation and conflict, state and citizen petitions, lawsuits, and heightened uncertainty in energy markets, producing an avoidable
and negative impact on local investment, jobs and consumer energy bills. Not a pretty picture.

Failure to pass Clear Skies results in thousands of preventable deaths each year
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

The public health and environmental benefits of Clear Skies present compelling reasons for its immediate passage. EPA's 2003
analysis of the President's Clear Skies Act (which did not account for CAIR and CAMR) projected that Americans would experience
significant health benefits each year by 2020, including approximately:-- 14,100 fewer premature deaths;-- 8,800 fewer cases of
chronic bronchitis;-- 23,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks;-- 30,000 fewer visits to hospitals and emergency rooms for cardiovascular
and respiratory symptoms, including asthma attacks; and-- 12.5 million fewer days with respiratory illnesses and symptoms. Many of
these benefits, as well as the benefits described below, would be achieved by CAIR and CAMR if they are not delayed or blocked by
litigation.2 Clear Skies would lock in the benefits of CAIR and CAMR and provide additional benefits, particularly in the West. Clear
Skies' benefits would far exceed its costs. EPA estimated in 2003 that the monetized value of the health benefits we can quantify under
Clear Skies would be $110 billion annually by 2020 -- substantially greater than the projected annual costs of approximately $6.3
billion. The Agency estimated an additional $3 billion in benefits from improving visibility at select national parks and wilderness
areas. These estimates did not include the many additional benefits that were not monetized, such as human health benefits from
reduced risk of mercury emissions, and ecological benefits from improvements in the health of our forests, lakes, and coastal
waters.Clear Skies would achieve most of these benefits by dramatically reducing fine particle pollution caused by SO2 and NOx
emissions, which is a year-round problem. Of the many air pollutants regulated by EPA, fine particle pollution is perhaps the greatest
threat to public health. Hundreds of studies in the peer-reviewed literature have found that these microscopic particles can reach the
deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to fine particles is associated with premature death, as well as asthma attacks, chronic
bronchitis, decreased lung function, and respiratory disease. Exposure is also associated with aggravation of heart and lung disease,
leading to increased hospitalizations, emergency room and doctor visits, and use of medication. By reducing NOx emissions, Clear
Skies also would reduce ozone pollution in the eastern part of the country and help keep ozone levels low in the western portion of the
country.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            167/448


                                           SOLVENCY – AIR POLLUTION

CSI would restore the flexibility and incentive to cleanup strategies that previous policies failed to do
A. Denny Ellerman and Paul L. Joskow (both Massachusetts Institute of Technology), "Clearing the Polluted Sky," New York
Times, May 1, 2002
[A. Denny Ellerman is executive director and Paul L. Joskow is director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.]
<http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd050202d.html>

Cap-and-trade regulation has succeeded because it focuses on reducing total pollution to the emissions cap without specifying
particular technologies and specific emissions levels for hundreds of different sources. The system allows sources to trade emissions
permits, so that those facing very costly cleanup bills can effectively pay others with lower costs to reduce emissions on their
behalf.The main criticisms of Mr. Bush's plan focus on the move to end the distinction between old and new sources of emissions. The
Clean Air Act held that plants built after 1970 had to have the best emission control technology available at the time they were built,
and old plants that were substantially upgraded would have to meet the same standard. This approach was never a good idea and has
now become unworkable and environmentally counterproductive.The Clean Air Act provides that pollution sources are controlled
under ''state implementation plans,'' approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, that bring a state's emissions sources into line
with national air quality standards. This core standard ensures uniformity so no high-emission hot spots develop; it is unaffected by
the Clear Skies initiative.But requiring new sources to meet more stringent requirements than old sources never made much sense. The
hope in 1970 was that large future reductions in emissions would be made as old plants were retired and replaced by new plants. But
two problems bedeviled implementation. Imposing more stringent requirements on new plants has effectively increased the value of
existing plants. The difficulty of siting new plants has made old plants less likely to be replaced, and dramatic technological advances
have reduced maintenance costs and made it possible to extend the life of old plants.Determining when an updated old source should
have to meet new source standards has also proved difficult. The existing law contains a mechanism called new source review,
whereby expenditures on existing plants are reviewed to see whether the plant has crossed the poorly defined line between old and
new. The uncertainty of this line has discouraged power plant owners from improving existing units for fear of triggering ''new
source'' requirements. It has also led to lengthy litigation over what is and isn't ''new.''An expanded cap-and-trade program would
make no distinction between new sources and old -- and, given the administration's proposed cap, would be more effective in reducing
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions than the existing system. (Such a system could be expanded to cover some
particulates and volatile organic compounds as well as sources other than power plants.)In the administration's plan, plant owners
would get both the incentive to reduce emissions and the flexibility to find the cheapest cleanup strategies for key pollutants without
regard to a plant's age. The nation is more likely to reduce air pollutants faster by scrapping the new-source strategy, increasing the use
of cap-and-trade, and moving away from a system that requires regulators to make too many plant-by-plant decisions.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         168/448


                       SOLVENCY – AIR POLLUTION (STATUS QUO FAILS)

Status quo air pollution policies fail – only Clear Skies will solve
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

Although the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) are very important rules, with significant
health and environmental benefits, the country would be even better off if Congress passed the President's Clear Skies Act. Clear Skies
would provide more expansive and certain results. Clear Skies would enable us to achieve broader reductions of SO2 and NOx
emissions because the legislation would apply nationally, while CAIR is limited in geographic scope to 28 states and the District of
Columbia. Although CAIR addresses the bulk of power plant emissions of S02 and NOx, Clear Skies would also reduce SO2 and
NOx emissions in the West and incorporate the SO2 program developed by Western states.Based on our experiences with litigation on
the NOx SIP Call versus that on the Acid Rain Trading Program, Clear Skies would provide more certainty for the utility industry, and
for state and local air quality planners. Although the NOx SIP Call is now in place, litigation on this rule delayed compliance, making
planning for pollution control installations difficult, raising costs to industry and consumers, and delaying health and environmental
benefits. In contrast, the Acid Rain Trading Program, enacted by Congress as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, has been
almost free of litigation and started on schedule. Compliance has been nearly 100 percent, and the inherent flexibility of the allowance
trading program has reduced costs by 75 percent from initial EPA estimates.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          169/448


                                            SOLVENCY – ECOSYSTEMS

Clear Skies solve ecological destruction
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

In addition to substantial human health benefits, Clear Skies would also deliver numerous environmental benefits. Nitrogen loads to
the Chesapeake Bay and other nitrogen sensitive estuaries would be reduced, reducing potential for water quality problems such as
algae blooms and fish kills.Clear Skies would also accelerate the recovery process of acidic lakes, virtually eliminating chronic acidity
in all but 1% of modeled Northeastern lakes by 2030, according to our 2003 analysis. The Acid Rain Program has allowed some of
these lakes and the surrounding forests to begin to recover. Clear Skies would also help other ecosystems suffering from the effects of
acid deposition by preventing further deterioration of Southeastern streams. Finally, Clear Skies would improve visibility across the
country, particularly in our treasured national parks and wilderness areas, resulting in projected improvements of approximately two to
seven miles in visual range in many areas (based on our 2003 analysis).
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           170/448


                                                  SOLVENCY – STATES

Clear Skies creates cost effective strategy for each state
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

Under the current Clean Air Act, state and local governments face the daunting task of meeting the new fine particle and ozone
standards. Clear Skies would substantially reduce that burden. By making enormous strides towards attainment of the fine particle and
ozone standards, Clear Skies would assist state and local governments in meeting their obligation under the Clean Air Act to bring
areas into attainment with these health-based standards, and provide Americans with cleaner air. As noted previously, the
combination of Clear Skies, EPA's rule to decrease emissions from nonroad diesel engines, and other existing state and federal control
programs - such as pollution control requirements for cars and trucks - would bring a substantial number of counties that currently
monitor nonattainment into attainment with the fine particle and ozone standards. Even in the few areas that would not attain the
standards without adoption of local control measures, Clear Skies would significantly improve air quality. This would make it easier
for state and local areas to reach the ozone and fine particle standards. Clear Skies' assistance to states goes beyond ensuring that
power plants will reduce their emissions. Clear Skies relies on a common-sense principle - if a local air quality problem will be solved
cost-effectively in a reasonable time frame by the required regional reductions in power plant emissions, we should not require local
areas to adopt local measures. Under Clear Skies, areas that are projected to meet the ozone and fine particle standards by 2015 would
be able take advantage of the broad emission reductions occurring at the regional level as a result of Clear Skies.3 If certain conditions
are met, these areas could be designated "transitional" areas, instead of "nonattainment", and they would not have to adopt local
measures (except as necessary to qualify for transitional status). They would have reduced air quality planning obligations and would
not have to administer more complex programs, such as transportation conformity, nonattainment New Source Review, or locally-
based progress or technology requirements in most circumstances.


Clear Skies will improve the cap and trade program – adjusts to regional differences in states
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

The heart of Clear Skies is a proven cap-and-trade approach to emissions reductions. Mandatory caps restrict total emissions and
decline over time. When fully implemented, Clear Skies would result in a 70% reduction in power plant emissions of SO2, NOx and
mercury from 2000 levels. Clear Skies would continue the existing national cap-and-trade program for SO2, but dramatically reduce
the cap from 9 million to 3 million tons. Clear Skies would also use a national cap-and-trade program for mercury that would reduce
emissions from the current level of about 48 tons to a cap of 15 tons. The legislation would also employ two regional cap-andtrade
programs for NOx to reduce emissions from 2000 levels of 5 million tons to 1.7 million tons. Although national in scope, Clear Skies
recognizes and adjusts for important regional differences in both the nature of air pollution and the relative importance of emissions
from power generation. The eastern half of the country needs reductions in NOx emissions to help meet the ozone and fine particle
standards, which generally are not a regional issue in the western half of the county (with the exception of California, which does not
have significant emissions from existing coal-fired power plants). The western half of the country needs NOx reductions primarily to
reduce the regional haze that mars scenic vistas in our national parks and wilderness areas, and the nitrogen deposition that harms
fragile forests. Recognizing these regional differences, Clear Skies would establish two trading zones for NOx emissions and prohibit
trading between the zones to ensure that the critical health-driven goals in the East are achieved.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          171/448


                                     AT: LITIGATION DELAYS SOLVENCY

Clear Skies provides a regulatory certain environment for power plants – immunity to litigation means solvency is immediate
JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, “CLEAR
SKIES ACT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 26, 2005 Thursday, CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY, 4118
words, HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE, lexis

Clear Skies has several benefits over the regulatory scheme that will otherwise confront power generators. Clear Skies provides
regulatory certainty and lays out the timeframes necessary for plant managers to design a cost effective strategy tailored to both their
current budgets and future plans. Clear Skies is designed to go into effect immediately upon enactment. Power plants would
immediately understand their obligations to reduce pollution and would be rewarded for early action. As a result, public health and
environmental benefits would begin immediately and result in emissions reductions more quickly than required. Given Clear Skies'
design, it is unlikely that litigation could delay the program (particularly since Congress would decide the two most controversial
issues - the magnitude and timing of reductions). Past experience suggests that litigation delays on the regulatory path are likely. Our
experience with two cap-and-trade programs - the legislatively-created Acid Rain Trading Program and the administratively-created
NOx SIP Call - illustrates the benefits of achieving our public health and environmental goals with well- designed legislation rather
than relying solely on existing regulatory authority. Even when regulations are ultimately upheld in the courts, emission reductions
can be delayed and costs can increase simply because of uncertainty. Reductions from the Acid Rain Trading Program were
experienced early, well before compliance deadlines. There were few legal challenges to the small number of rules EPA had to issue -
and none of the challenges delayed implementation of the program. The results of the program have been dramatic - and
unprecedented.Reductions in power plant SO2 emissions were larger and earlier than required, providing earlier human health and
environmental benefits. Now, in the tenth year of the program, we know that the greatest SO2 emissions reductions were achieved in
the highest SO2- emitting states; acid deposition dramatically decreased over large areas of the eastern United States in the areas
where it was most critically needed; trading did not cause geographic shifting of emissions or increases in localized pollution; and the
human health and environmental benefits were delivered broadly beyond what EPA had projected.
It is clear from this example that existing regulatory tools often take considerable time to achieve significant results, and can be
subject to additional years of litigation before significant emissions reductions are achieved. Even when the regulation is ultimately
upheld by the courts, litigation creates uncertainty that can delay emission reductions or increase costs.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          172/448


                                              NET BENEFIT – POLITICS

CSI is partisan – Democrats hate it while Republicans introduced it
Environmental News Service, “USA: Republican "Clear Skies" Toxic to Democrats,” CorpWatch, February 28th, 2003
<http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5769>

WASHINGTON, DC, February 28, 2003 (ENS) - The Clear Skies initiative, an air quality plan architected by President George W.
Bush, was reintroduced in Congress Thursday. It drew immediate criticism from Democrats who vowed to fight the administration's
market centered approach to reducing air pollution from power plants. Environmentalists and public health advocates say an analysis
with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates Clear Skies could mean more than 100,000 unnecessary
premature deaths between now and 2020, deaths that would be avoided if the current Clean Air Act was enforced. "I will do
everything in my power to stop a bill that puts polluters ahead of people," said North Carolina Senator John Edwards, a Democrat and
a declared 2004 candidate for President. A cap and trade program for pollutants, Clear Skies is modeled on the 1990 Clean Air Act's
acid rain program, the nation's first such effort. It is intended to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
mercury more quickly and efficiently than the current law, the administration says. "Clear Skies represents cost effective pollution
reductions that make sense for the environment and the economy," said President Bush in a prepared statement. Passage of the Clear
Skies bill is "a top environmental priority of this administration," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "It is also an essential
component of our goal to dramatically improve the environment while promoting energy security and independence," she said.
"Almost immediately following its passage into law, Clear Skies would generate health and environmental benefits from reduced air
pollution." But key Congressional Democrats counter nearly every claim the administration makes about its plan. Clear Skies, say
Democrats, environmentalists and public health advocates, will do far less to reduce pollution than the enforcement of the current
Clean Air Act, and it does not address the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant heat trapping greenhouse gas. The
bill is a "legislative nonstarter" said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut who has thrown his hat in the 2004
presidential ring. The legislation was introduced Thursday in the Senate by Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma and George
Voinovich of Ohio, both Republicans. Representatives Joe Barton of Texas and Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, also Republicans,
introduced the legislation in the House.



CSI is unpopular – Democrats are blocking it
DEB RIECHMANN, “Bush Pushes His Air-Pollution Initiative,” AP Online, 16 September 2003
<www.uwlax.edu/faculty/knowles/eco110/Bush%20Pushes%20His%20Air.doc>

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush asked Congress Tuesday to approve his plan for reducing pollution from power plants, trying
for a second day to revive legislation that has stalled for more than a year. His task grew more complicated when three House
members, including a Republican, introduced legislation they said would reduce air pollution faster than Bush's plan. It would also
regulate industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists blame for global warming and which Bush does not address in his
initiative. On a cloudless afternoon, Bush stood in the East Garden of the White House and said: "The sky is clear and we intend to
keep it that way." Bush first proposed a plan he dubbed Clear Skies in February 2002, but it has gone nowhere in Congress, even as
Republicans have taken control of the House and Senate. The legislation only got its first hearing in the House in July of this year.
Bush said he had lobbied Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman Environment and Public Works Committee, on the Truman Balcony
to help pass the legislation in the Senate. But Democrats might be able to block Clear Skies by protesting that it does not tackle
carbon dioxide. Bush did not mention that criticism Tuesday. Instead, he met with an array of people who support the plan, including
state and local officials, power plant managers and business leaders. Bush also met with the executive director of the Adirondack
Council, an environmental group that has backed Clear Skies in the past, angering other environmental groups.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                            Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                 173/448


                       *** SEWAGE CAP & TRADE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         174/448

                                           SEWAGE CAP & TRADE 1NC

Text – The United States federal government should require that sewage plants reduce discharged nitrogen by 58.5 percent by
2014 by establishing an upstream cap and trade program.


The counterplan competes through the net benefits.

Trading programs significantly reduce released nitrogen’s from waste-water plants
BARBARA WHITAKER, “ENVIRONMENT; Sewage Plant Trading Program Reducing Pollution,” New York Times, November
11, 2007
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0DE1130F932A25752C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>

SINCE 2002, Connecticut has reduced the amount of nitrogen being released into the Long Island Sound by allowing its 79 sewage-
treatment plants to trade pollution credits.Under the program, plants facing costly improvements to meet federal nitrogen reduction
requirements can spend less by buying credits.Those credits are created by plants that are able to more easily meet requirements. In
2006, 27 plants earned from $869 to $393,000 in the credit program and resulted in a net reduction of nitrogen being released into the
Sound.''We are excited about water-quality trading,'' said Benjamin H. Grumbles, the assistant administrator for water at the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, which honored Connecticut last month for the program.''We view it as a way to reduce transaction
costs and increase environmental results,'' he said.Officials in Westchester County view it the same way and would like a similar
opportunity. For much of the past year, they have been pressing the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to consider
a trading program as a way to reduce significantly the amount of nitrogen released by the county's four waste-water treatment plants.
The state has so far refused.''Connecticut's got it right; New York has got it wrong,'' said Larry S. Schwartz, deputy county executive
in Westchester. ''What the State Department of Environmental Conservation is asking the County of Westchester to do is misguided
and wrongheaded.''


Reducing by 58.4 percent by 2014 solves nitrogen and sewage water
BARBARA WHITAKER, “ENVIRONMENT; Sewage Plant Trading Program Reducing Pollution,” New York Times, November
11, 2007
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E0DE1130F932A25752C1A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>

Under a 2001 agreement with the E.P.A., New York and Connecticut must reduce the amount of nitrogen discharged into the Sound
by 58.5 percent by 2014.Nitrogen is one of the primary causes of hypoxia -- low levels of dissolved oxygen that each summer makes
hundreds of square miles of habitat unsuitable in the Sound, damaging fish and plant life. Nitrogen comes from sources like fertilizer
and animal feces picked up by storm water runoff, but waste water flowing into the Sound has been identified as a primary factor.To
meet the terms of the agreement, the states analyzed how much nitrogen would need to be removed from the waste stream and
established a base for reducing input.In the five years trading has been conducted in Connecticut, baseline discharges of nitrogen have
been reduced to 34,000 pounds a day, from 50,000 pounds a day, with the goal being 18,500 by 2014. State officials estimate that the
trading program -- the largest of its kind in the nation, according to Mr. Grumbles of the E.P.A. -- will save $200 million to $400
million, and that the total cost of reducing the state's nitrogen discharge may ultimately be more than $800 million.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          175/448


                                              SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS

Nitrogen trading is the most effective low cost solution. Prefer our evidence, it’s based on recentcomparative studies.
Dr Suzie Greenhalgh and Mindy Selman, “SESSION N°2: Nutrient Trading – A Water Quality Solution?” World Resource Institute,
November 2005
[Suzie has a PhD in Resource Economics from Ohio State University, USA; an undergraduate degree in Agricultural Science (Natural
Resource Management) from the University of Queensland, Australia; and graduate degrees in Rural Science and Economics from the
University of New England, Australia and Ohio State University.Mindy Selman is a senior associate in the People and Ecosystems
Program of the World Resources Institute.]
<www.oecd.org/secure/docDocument/0,2827,en_21571361_34281952_35508395_1_1_1_1,00.doc>

A 2003 study by WRI (Greenhalgh and Sauer, 2003) assessed a variety of agricultural policy options to mitigate the hypoxic—oxygen
depleted—zone in the Gulf of Mexico and found that nutrient trading was the most cost-effective solution. The hypoxic zone
results from excessive amounts of nitrogen entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River (Goolsby et al., 1999). By the
summer of 2002 the hypoxic zone, which has been consistently monitored since 1985, reached a height of 22,000 km2 or 8,500 square
miles in size (Rabalais et al., 1999; Dunne, 2002; LUMCON, 2002), A majority of the nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin comes
from agricultural non-point sources,2 prompting us to explore several agricultural policy options as a mitigation strategy. This study
compared policy options that directly affected nitrogen losses in the Mississippi River Basin, as well as a number of options that
focused on other environmental problems such as soil loss, phosphorus runoff and climate change. By comparing a wide range of
policies and their impacts, we were able to look more broadly at the environmental benefits of the various options. The policy
options assessed included:       * Taxing nitrogen fertilizer applications, * Subsidizing a change to conservation tillage practices, *
Extending Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acreage, * Trading greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions at both $5/t carbon and
$14/t carbon, * Trading nitrogen reductions to meet either a 3 or 8 mg/l/day N discharge limit3 for wastewater treatment facilities,
* Trading phosphorus reductions to meet either 1 or <1 mg/l/day P discharge limit4 for wastewater treatment facilities, and *
Trading nitrogen reductions (to meet 3mg/l/day N discharge limit for wastewater treatment facilities) with an additional payment for
the associated GHG reductions achieved with any implemented BMP. These policies were evaluated using an agro-environmental
model of U.S. agriculture, the U.S. Regional Agricultural Sector Model (USMP). This model was developed and is maintained by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS). WRI has worked with USDA/ERS to improve the spatial
delineation of USMP, increase the diversity of cropping rotations included in the model, and simulate the environmental impacts of
various cropping production practices and the Conservation Reserve Program. Only a short synopsis of the results of this study is
outlined in this paper. A more detailed explanation of the findings and recommendations of this study and description of the model
used can be found in Greenhalgh and Sauer (2003). Taking a broader look at the environmental impacts of the various policy
options, nutrient trading performed better than the other options assessed (Figures 1a through 1f). Nutrient trading provided the largest
decreases in nitrogen reaching the Gulf of Mexico and the greatest improvements in farm income. In addition, nutrient trading
demonstrated improvements in local water quality as well as reductions in GHG emissions and soil losses. Other policy options
performed well for some environmental parameters but not for others. For instance, conservation tillage subsidies gave the largest
reductions in soil loss and reasonable reductions in nitrogen delivered to the Gulf of Mexico, but resulted in decreases in farm income.
This decrease comes from an increase in farm acreage which led to increased crop production, and a subsequent decline in crop prices.
The other important aspect of assessing different policy options is how cost-effective they are at meeting the goal of interest, in this
case reducing the amount of nitrogen reaching the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin. In other words, which policy
gives the ‘biggest bang for your buck.’The lowest-cost mechanisms in our study were the performance-based options, such as nutrient
and GHG trading (Figure 2). However, the most cost-effective solutions were the options based on nutrient trading, which achieved
large reductions in the amount of nitrogen delivered to the Gulf of Mexico at low prices. Our conclusion at the end of this study was
that nutrient trading was indeed a worthwhile policy solution for helping meet water quality targets, and for providing other
environmental benefits.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            176/448


                                               SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS

Comparative studies prove nitrogen trading is the most flexible and cost effective approach
Suzie Greenhalgh and Amanda Sauer, “Awakening the 'Dead Zone': An investment for agriculture, water quality, and climate
change,” World Resource Institute, Executive Summary, February 2003
<http://www.wri.org/publication/awakening-dead-zone-investment-agriculture-water-quality-and-climate-change>

Our analysis shows that the use of market mechanisms like nutrient trading provides not only the greatest overall environmental
benefits but also is the most cost-effective strategy. Nutrient trading allows sources with high mitigation costs to obtain credits from
sources that can reduce their contribution of pollutants to waterways at a lower cost. Trading focuses on reducing the cause of the
environmental concern at hand rather than promoting a specific practice or set of practices.For instance, under a nutrient trading
program, farmers would be paid according to size of the reductions they achieve in nitrogen or phosphorus loss-- not on the number of
acres placed in conservation tillage or the buffer strips they plant. This approach provides greater flexibility for local policymakers and
farmers to identify and implement the most appropriate solutions in their region.Other potential policies examined in this study did not
perform as well as nutrient trading in reducing the amount of nitrogen delivered to the Gulf or in providing any associated
environmental benefits. GHG trading at $14 per metric ton of carbon provided reductions in GHG emissions and nitrogen delivered to
the Gulf as well as improvements to local water quality and farm income.However, at the current world price of around $5 per ton of
carbon, incentives are insufficient to attract widespread participation by farmers in trading. Consequently, this policy option produces
fewer GHG reductions, significantly lower water quality improvements, and smaller increases in farm income. Combining nitrogen
trading with payments for reducing GHG emissions provides similar benefits to the Gulf and local water quality as nitrogen trading
alone, but offers slighter greater climate benefits.Other policy options examined, such as a tax on nitrogen fertilizer or a subsidy to
farmers converting from conventional tillage practices to conservation tillage, provided some water quality and climate change
benefits, but also led to declines in farm income. The latter effect makes taxes on nitrogen fertilizer or subsidies for conservation
tillage less appealing options.The final policy tested, an expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program to 40 million acres, produces
all aro
und positive benefits, but the magnitude is typically lower than those achieved under nutrient trading and thus does not provide an
adequate solution to the problem.To more effectively address the problem, the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force (the federal, state, and tribal taskforce dealing with hypoxia in the Gulf) or its constituent agencies can set a target and
provide a mechanism to reduce the size of the Dead Zone. This can be achieved by introducing a reduction goal to support the Task
Force’s Action Plan and endorsing programs that embrace performance-based nutrient reduction opportunities, such as nutrient
trading.Federal and state agricultural policy can also provide further motivation for farmers to reduce their nutrient losses by focusing
incentive mechanisms, like nutrient trading, in those areas that contribute the greatest amount of nutrients to waterways and the Dead
Zone
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                    177/448


                                                         SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS

Nitrogen trading solves – EPA awarded it a blue ribbon
ENS, “Connecticut Water Quality Trading Program Wins Blue Ribbon Award,” Environmental News Service, November 2, 2007
<http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-02-094.asp>

HARTFORD, Connecticut, November 2, 2007 (ENS) - An innovative program to reduce discharges of nitrogen from sewage
treatment plants into Long Island Sound has earned the state of Connecticut the first Blue Ribbon Water Quality Trading Award from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water quality trading allows pollution sources to meet regulatory obligations by purchasing credits from
facilities that have exceeded their mandated water quality standards. "Connecticut has done a remarkable job working to reduce nitrogen to Long Island Sound," said
Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England office. "Their hard work will result in a healthier ecosystem in the Sound for millions of residents to
enjoy." The EPA award showcases programs which have achieved environmental and economic benefits and align well with the EPA's
Water Quality Trading Policy. "EPA applauds Connecticut's national leadership on water quality trading, which is the wave of the
future. Our blue ribbon winner is setting a shining example for reducing pollution, restoring ecosystems, and saving money," said
Benjamin Grumbles, EPA assistant administrator for water. Every summer, the bottom waters of the western half of Long Island Sound experience very low levels of
dissolved oxygen, a condition known as hypoxia. Extensive monitoring of Long Island Sound has identified the excess discharge of nitrogen from human activities as
the primary pollutant causing hypoxia. Nitrogen fuels the growth of algae in the Sound, which eventually decays, consuming oxygen in the process. In 2001, the
EPA along with the states of Connecticut and New York, set new targets to reduce the amount of nitrogen that can be discharged to
Long Island Sound without impairing the health of the Sound.Through 2006, the point source nitrogen load to the Sound from 106
sewage treatment plants in the two states was reduced by nearly 25 percent.

Nitrogen trading has gives companies flexibility to meet the permit limits
ENS, “Connecticut Water Quality Trading Program Wins Blue Ribbon Award,” Environmental News Service, November 2, 2007
<http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-02-094.asp>

"We have made great strides in reducing nitrogen loading to Long Island Sound through our innovative Nitrogen Credit Trading
Program," said Connecticut DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy. "Municipal participation is a key to successful trading, and their
cooperation and interest has been exceptional. We appreciate EPA's recognition of this proactive program and look forward to
continuing this incredibly important work with our federal partners." One of Connecticut's management strategies to reduce nitrogen
loading was to develop an innovative nitrogen trading program among the 79 sewage treatment plants located throughout the state.
Established in 2002, the Nitrogen Credit Exchange has resulted in 28 sewage treatment plants discharging below their assigned permit
limits. These plants are able to sell nitrogen credits valued at $1.31 million to sewage treatment plans in the state that are not
upgrading or need to purchase credits for some other reason. McCarthy says trading provides municipalities with flexibility to make
decisions about whether to upgrade and market any credits they earn or to buy credits to meet their permit limit. Nitrogen trading has
accelerated the state's schedule to meet its nitrogen targets, she said. In 1998, the Long Island Sound Study, a national estuary program, adopted a 58.5
percent reduction target for nitrogen loads from human sources to the Sound by 2014, with interim five and 10 year targets to assure steady progress. In 2001, the EPA
approved Connecticut's and New York's plan for achieving the 58.5 percent nitrogen reduction target. As of 2005, upgrades to sewage treatment plants have decreased
nitrogen discharges to the Sound by 20 percent from peak years in the early 1990s.

Nitrogen from sewage plants creates unhealthy water environments – only cap and trade programs are flexible enough to solve
OLR, “Nitrogen Credit Trading in Long Island Sound,” OLR Issue Brief, 1998
<www.cga.ct.gov/ps98/rpt/olr/98-r-1495.doc>

Each summer declining levels of dissolved oxygen in portions of Long Island Sound (LIS) create unhealthy and sometimes deadly
conditions for finfish, shellfish, and other marine life. This condition, called hypoxia, is the most serious water quality issue for the
sound. Hypoxia occurs when the dissolved oxygen content falls below a level that is healthy for marine life (generally below
3.5mg/l). It is caused by high levels of nitrogen in the water fueling excessive algae growth. The algae eventually decays in a process
that consumes dissolved oxygen from the water. Sewage treatment facilities are the largest single source of nitrogen to the sound;
other sources include runoff and atmospheric deposition. In very bad years the hypoxic conditions can cover up to 40% of the sound.
An analysis required under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL) the sound can
accommodate calls for a 58.5% reduction in nitrogen loads over a 15-year period. The Long Island Sound Study (LISS), a partnership
between Connecticut, New York and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has developed a plan for a nitrogen credit trading
program to meet that goal. The plan will allow permitted facilities to sell unused portions of their nitrogen discharge allowance to
other facilities that exceed their allowances. The total allowances will be ratcheted down each year until the overall discharges meet
the 58.5% reduction standard. In theory, credit trading programs like the one currently used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions create a
market-based incentive for facilities to pursue the most cost effective projects quickly while allowing other facilities some flexibility
in managing their discharge.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       178/448


                                       AT: ALT CAUSE – PHOSPHORUS

Focusing only on phosphorus makes the dead zones worse
CDNN, “Plan to revive Gulf of Mexico 'Dead Zone' could backfire,” Cyber Diver News Network, November 8, 2007
< http://www.cdnn.info/news/eco/e071108.html>

MICHIGAN (8 Nov 2007) — The potential revision to the government's approach for rejuvenating a huge "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of
Mexico is potentially dangerous and should be reconsidered, scientists in Michigan are reporting in a new study. In the study, Donald
Scavia and Kristina A. Donnelly point out that the Gulf of Mexico has one of the largest hypoxic, or oxygen-depleted, areas in the
world. Fish and plants in this 6,000 square mile "Dead Zone" have been devastated, leaving the waters incapable of sustaining many
types of aquatic life. In response, an intergovernmental task force gave the U. S. Congress and the President a so-called Hypoxia
Action Plan in 2001, which aimed to reduce the size of the Dead Zone. That original plan called for reducing nitrogen loads to the
Gulf, but recent assessments are considering phosphorous as the limiting factor in controlling the algae blooms that deplete oxygen
from the Gulf water, and focusing on reducing sewage discharges and other inputs of phosphorous. The new study concluded that
pollution control efforts must continue to focus on nitrogen even if phosphorus controls are added. It found that a phosphorus-only
approach is potentially dangerous. Using mathematical model estimates and real-world data from other hypoxia reduction experiences
in North Carolina and Hong Kong waters, the researchers suggest that a phosphorous-only approach could possibly enlarge the Dead
Zone, extending it into the western portion of the Gulf.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                           179/448


                                                                 NET BENEFIT – BIODIVERSITY 1/2

Nitrogen causes hypoxia and dead zones – only effective nitrogen trading can reduce this trend
Jennifer Harr, “The "Dead Zone" - Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico,” Marine Resources Committee - Newsletter Archive, Vol.3, No.
1, American Bar Association - May 2000
<http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/marine/newsletter/may00/harr.html>
Known as the "dead zone," a massive area of oxygen-depleted water stretches across the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana’s Mississippi
Delta to the Texas border every summer, beginning in late spring, and disappearing in the fall. The largest dead zone to date occurred in 1999, and measured roughly 8,000 square miles. The
dead zone is caused by "hypoxia," or the condition in which dissolved oxygen levels are below those necessary to sustain most animal life. It occurs when the amount of oxygen consumed by the
decomposition of organic materials exceeds the amount produced by photosynthesis and introduced into water from the atmosphere. The hypoxia in the Gulf is caused by excess nutrients
delivered by the Mississippi River, combined with stratification of Gulf waters. The dead zone occurs each year when warmer,
nitrogen-rich fresh water from the River moves over Gulf waters, which are cooler and saltier (and therefore heavier). The excess
nutrients cause algae to multiply rapidly. As it dies and sinks to the bottom, the algae is eaten by bacteria that use up the limited
amount of oxygen available. As levels of oxygen drop below 5 parts per million (ppm), many creatures begin to show signs of stress.
Below 2 ppm, the water is considered hypoxic. Any creature that can will leave the area. Slow-moving creatures such as crabs and snails die and remain on the bottom. At 0.5 ppm, worms and other burrowing organisms
crawl up from the mud in search of oxygen, and will die if oxygen concentrations remain at this level. The bodies often remain undisturbed for weeks, because there is nothing to eat them. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") is currently leading an assessment of hypoxia in the Gulf mandated by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, Pub. L. 105-383, which Congress passed in
1998. Six interrelated reports were prepared (available at http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html ) and underwent peer review. NOAA released a draft "Integrated Assessment" based on these reports in late 1999.
The Integrated Assessment reports that there have been three major changes in the River’s drainage basin during the later half of the 20th century: (1) channelization for flood control and navigation, (2) alterations to the
landscape (deforestation and artificial agricultural drainage) that removed much of the "buffer" for runoff into the River, and (3) a dramatic increase in fertilizer nitrogen input into the Mississippi River drainage basin. About
                                                                                                                                                      The
90% of the nitrate discharged by the River comes from non-point sources. The principal sources of nitrate are river basins that drain agricultural land in southern Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
Integrated Assessment concludes that the most effective means of reducing nitrogen inputs include improved management practices to
retain nitrogen on fields, reducing application of nitrogen fertilizer, implementing alternative cropping systems, decreasing feedlot runoff, and reducing point
sources. Nitrogen trading among all sectors could offer opportunities to obtain the greatest reductions for the least cost. The amount of
nitrogen reaching the Gulf could also be reduced by increasing the acreage of wetlands and riparian buffers within the basin. For
example, five million acres of constructed or restored wetlands would reduce nitrogen load to the Gulf by 20%.

Hypoxia triggers sex change in fish – causing marine biodiversity extinction. Expert studies confirm.
American Chemical Society, “Ocean 'dead zones' trigger sex changes in fish, posing extinction threat,” EurekAlert!, March 29, 2008
 [Prof. Rudolf Wu’s expertise is in marine pollution and ecotoxicology. He received his PhDfrom the University of British Columbia. After which, he has worked in
Canada, USA,Australia and Hong Kong. Currently, he is a Chair Professor, and also the Director of theCentre for Coastal Pollution and Conservation of the City
University.Prof. Wu serves on the editorial boards of two international journals, a number of expertgroups of the United Nations and also the scientific advisory
committee of the UKEnvironment Agency] <http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/acs-oz032906.php>
Oxygen depletion in the world’s oceans, primarily caused by agricultural run-off and pollution, could spark the development of far more
male fish than female, thereby threatening some species with extinction, according to a study published today on the Web site of the
American Chemical Society journal, Environmental Science & Technology. The study is scheduled to appear in the May 1 print issue of the
journal.The finding, by Rudolf Wu, Ph.D., and colleagues at the City University of Hong Kong, raises new concerns about vast areas of
the world’s oceans, known as "dead zones," that lack sufficient oxygen to sustain most sea life. Fish and other creatures trapped in
these zones often die. Those that escape may be more vulnerable to predators and other stresses. This new study, Wu says, suggests
these zones potentially pose a third threat to these species — an inability of their offspring to find mates and reproduce.The
researchers found that low levels of dissolved oxygen, also known as hypoxia, can induce sex changes in embryonic fish, leading to an
overabundance of males. As these predominately male fish mature, it is unlikely they will be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers
to maintain sustainable populations, Wu says. Low oxygen levels also might reduce the quantity and quality of the eggs produced by
female fish, diminishing their fertility, he adds.In their experiments, Wu and his colleagues found low levels of dissolved oxygen —
less than 2 parts per million — down-regulated the activity of certain genes that control the production of sex hormones and sexual
differentiation in embryonic zebra fish.As a result, 75 percent of the fish developed male characteristics. In contrast, 61 percent of the zebra
fish spawn raised under normal oxygen conditions — more than 5 parts per million — developed into males. The normal sex ratio of zebra fish is about 60 percent male
and 40 percent female, Wu says."Reproductive success is the single most important factor in the sustainability of species," Dr. Wu says. "In
many places, the areas affected by hypoxia are usually larger than the spawning and nursery grounds of fish. Even though some
tolerant species can survive in hypoxic zones, they may not be able to migrate out of the zone and their reproduction will be
impaired."Hypoxia is considered one of the most serious threats to marine life and genetic diversity, Wu says. It occurs when
excessive amounts of plant nutrients, particularly nitrogen, accumulate in oceans, freshwater lakes and other waterways. These nutrients
trigger the growth of huge algae and phytoplankton blooms. As these blooms die, they sink to the ocean floor where they are decomposed by bacteria and other
microorganisms. Decomposition depletes most of the oxygen in the surrounding water, making it difficult for marine life to
survive.Although some hypoxic areas — dead zones — develop naturally, scientific evidence suggests in many coastal areas and inland waters,
hypoxia is primarily caused by agricultural run-off (particularly fertilizers) and discharge of domestic and industrial wastewaters.Dead zones are
developing along the coasts of the major continents, and they are spreading over larger areas of the sea floor, Wu says. The United Nations Environmental Programme
estimates nearly 150 permanent and recurring dead zones exist worldwide, including 43 in U.S. coastal waters .In the Gulf of Mexico, for instance, a dead
zone the size of New Jersey, some 7,000 square miles, develops each summer. Other affected areas of the United States include
coastal Florida and California, the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            180/448


                                       NET BENEFIT – BIODIVERSITY 2/2

Biodiversity is key to planetary survival – we’re on the brink now
The Independent (London), 'This steady degradation threatens everyone on the planet,' October 26, 2007 Friday, NEWS; Pg. 2, lexis

The report, by the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep), warns that the vital natural resources which support life on Earth
have suffered significantly since the first such report, published in 1987. However, this gradual depletion of the world's natural
"capital" has coincided with unprecedented economic gains for developed nations, which, for many people, have masked the growing
crisis. Nearly 400 scientists from around the world contributed to the report, which warns that humanity itself could be at risk if
nothing is done to address the three major environmental problems of a growing human population, climate change and the mass
extinction of animals and plants.The report is the fruit of five years' work by leading scientists and is the fourth in a series since the
publication in 1987 of Our Common Future by an international commission into the state of the global environment chaired by the
former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Achim Steiner, the executive director of Unep, said that the objective of
the latest report was not to present a "dark and gloomy scenario" but to make the case for an urgent call to action. However, the dire
state of almost every aspect of the planet's well-being points to 20 years of missed opportunities. Mr Steiner said yesterday at the
launch of the report that it was illuminating how, over the past 20 years, the financial wealth of the planet has soared by around a third.
"But at the same time it is sobering: much of the 'natural' capital upon which so much of human well-being and economic activity
depends - water, land, the air and atmosphere, biodiversity and marine resources - continue their seemingly inexorable decline," he
said. Meanwhile, the political response to the growing emergency has been limited. "Without an accelerated effort to reform the way
we collectively do business on planet Earth, we will shortly be in trouble, if indeed we are not already," Mr Steiner said. "There have
been enough wake-up calls. I sincerely hope this is the final one. The systematic destruction of the Earth's natural and nature-based
resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged - and the bill we hand on to our children
may prove impossible to pay," he said. The fourth Unep report since the seminal 1987 report of the Brundtland Commission reveals a
stark continuation in the decline. The environmental "footprint" of humanity has increased dramatically in 20 years, with a rising
population and increased use of energy, land and other natural resources. Unep's Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) states that the
human demand on the planet now means we are living beyond our means. The present footprint is equivalent to 22 hectares per
person, whereas the natural carrying capacity of the Earth is less than 16 hectares per person, the report says. The world economy has
at the same time boomed, with the global GDP per capita rising from about $6,000 (£2,920) to just over $8,000. But this increased
wealth has been geared towards the developed world and has come at an enormous cost to the environment. Available freshwater
stocks have declined dramatically since the 1980s, in west Asia, for instance, from 1,700 cubic metres per person per year, to 907
cubic metres today. By the middle of the century, this is likely to fall still further to 420 cubic metres per person per year. Over the
past 20 years, the proportion of fish stocks in the world that have collapsed has doubled from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. At the same
time the proportion of fish stocks that are deemed to be overexploited has risen from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. The intensity with
which agricultural land is farmed has also increased, and with it the burden of soil erosion, water scarcity, nutrient depletion and
pollution. In 1987, a hectare of cropland yielded 1.8 tons of produce, but due to intensification this has risen to 2.5 tons. Energy
consumption in developed nations has risen significantly. In Canada and the US, for instance, the demand for energy has grown by 19
per cent since 1987. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, are about a third higher than they were 20 years
ago. Species of animals and plants are estimated to be going extinct at a rate that is about 100 times faster than the historical record,
largely as a result of human activities. Biologists have classified 30 per cent of amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of
birds as threatened.A growing human population, which is expected to reach nine billion by mid-century, will place increasing
pressureon land, water and biodiversity. Land will have to be more intensively farmed, or more land will have be cultivated. "Either
way, biodiversity suffers," the report says. Against a background of continued degradation of the land and oceans, of population
increases and of species extinctions, lies the spectre of climate change - one of the biggest threats facing us in the 21st century. There
is "visible and unequivocal" evidence that global warming is causing further impacts on the global environment, GEO-4 says. Mike
Childs, campaigns director at Friends of the Earth, said the report made it clear we need concerted international political action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the loss of wildlife and ecosystems. "This report clearly demonstrates that we also need a
step-change in understanding that the steady degradation of the world's environment threatens the well-being of everybody," he said.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             181/448


                                               NET BENEFIT – POLITICS

Cap and trade is partisan – Senator Alexander and Democrats prove there would be a fight
Herman Wang, “Washington: Alexander defends environmental record,” Chattanooga Times Free Press, Sunday, June 29, 2008
<http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/29/washington-alexander-defends-environmental-record/?local>

Sen. Alexander’s Democratic opponents also have also attacked his opposition to an emissions cap-and-trade bill that recently failed
and his calls to open offshore areas for oil drilling, which they say would do nothing to reduce the country’s dependence on fossil
fuels. Besides Mr. Tuke, former Knox County Clerk Mike Padgett and Nashville businessman Kenneth Eaton are vying for Sen.
Alexander’s seat. Sen. Alexander said he voted against the cap-and-trade bill because it would have the effect of raising gas prices
while creating a $7 trillion “slush fund” for the federal government. The legislation would have established limits on carbon emissions
and allowed companies in compliance to sell any remaining emission allotments on the open market. Sen. Alexander said his support
for offshore oil drilling comes from a realistic assessment that increasing domestic supplies of oil is a necessary intermediate step until
alternative fuels are viable. “The Democrats are trying to repeal half the law of supply and demand,” Sen. Alexander said.


Cap and trade is partisan – Republicans are blocking Democrats from passing emission trading legislations
Ladeene A. Freimuth, “Emissions Trading and Other Climate Change Legislation - Overview and Update,” Sustainable
Development, Ecosystems, and Climate Change Committee - Newsletter Archive, Vol.5, No. 2 - January 2002
[Ladeene A. Freimuth is a legislative assistant for Senator Byron L. Dorgan for environment and energy issues.]
<http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/climatechange/newsletter/jan02/freimuth.html>

Future Prospects for Emissions Trading Legislation.Regardless of whether his legislation is addressed as part of the Senate energy
debate, Senator Jeffords has been planning for quite some time to pass a bill out of the Committee to bring to the Senate floor for
debate. This could occur in 2002, but Senator Voinovich now could pose as an obstacle and could keep some of the moderate
Republican Committee members from supporting the legislation. Some Republican votes might be needed to pass the bill out of
Committee. If the bill were to pass out of Committee, it could see floor action in 2002. On the Senate floor, an emissions trading bill
is likely to face some obstacles among Midwestern Democrats, as well as most Republicans. Even if a trading bill were to pass out of
the Senate, it would face even greater difficulty in the Republican-led House of Representatives. In fact, there has not been any
Committee action on emissions trading legislation in the House in 2001. Moreover, because President Bush has clearly expressed his
opposition to including carbon dioxide in emissions trading legislation, a four-pollutant bill could face the threat of a Presidential veto.
Then, enough votes for a veto override would be required. So, the legislation clearly has a tough road ahead for the remainder of the
107th Congress. Theoutlook could improve in Congress if the Democrats win the majority in the House. Yet, the Executive Branch
hurdles would remain. Since four-pollutant emissions trading legislation was first introduced in the 106th Congress, it could be
another five to seven years before there is sufficient Congressional support to pass four-pollutant emissions trading legislation out of
both Houses. Legislation that pertains to an issue with which Congress has not had much experience, and on which there has
consequently not been a long or substantial legislative history, could take many years to move forward. One reason for this timeframe
is that it generally takes a long time for Members and staff to understand this type of legislation that is technical and somewhat
scientific in nature. With rapid staff turnover, moving such legislation forward becomes even more difficult.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                              182/448


                       *** CLEAN WATER SRF COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          183/448


                                               CLEAN WATER SRF 1NC

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


The counterplan competes through net benefits.


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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           184/448


                                         SOLVENCY – WATER POLUTION

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         185/448


                                              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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      186/448


                                            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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         187/448


                                  NET BENEFIT – 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         188/448


                                    NET BENEFIT – 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                  189/448


                   *** SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                        190/448


                                            SUSTAINABLE AGRICULUTRE 1NC 1/4

Observation 1: Text: The United States federal government should utilize organic farming practices to cut fossil energy use

Observation 2: Competition- the cp competes via internal and external net benefits as well as the terms ‘incentives’ and
‘alternative energy

Observation 3:
Solvency: Sustainable Farming Practices will cut all agricultural emissions by half
John Ikerd 05 (“Meeting the Challenge of Peak Oil With Sustainable Agriculture”; Sustaining people through Agriculture series,
Small Farm Today Magazine, Missouri Farm Publications, Clark, MO. November- December)

Other sustainable farming practices could reduce agricultural energy use still farther. For example, research based on more than 20
years of recent data indicates that shifting to organic farming practices could save as much as 30% of the fossil energy, without
reducing total production. Sustainable grass-based livestock systems, utilizing management intensive grazing, are capable of
producing from 50% to 100% more protein per acre than conventional pasture/forage systems, while using less fertilizer, pesticides,
and fuel. Free-range and pasture-based pork and poultry also are far more energy efficient than confinement feeding operations. In
addition, hogs and chickens are natural scavengers and thus could get a significant portion of their diets from waste products.
Significant fossil energy savings from livestock and poultry might well be achievable without sacrificing healthy levels of animal
protein in human diets. Changes in food processing and distribution in the U.S., such as increased use of raw and minimally processed
foods, more meals prepared at home, and a shift to more community-based, local food systems, could increase the efficiency of energy
use in food marketing by comparable amounts. To my knowledge, no detailed estimates are available, but energy savings from
shifting to more-sustainable agricultural systems, using currently available methods and technologies, probably could cut total fossil
energy use in agriculture by one-half, resulting in a savings equivalent to about 3% of total fossil energy use. Similar efficiencies in
processing and distribution could save an additional 6% or so in fossil energy use, but would still leave total food production with an
energy deficit equivalent to 8% of current total fossil energy use in the U.S.

Sustainable Ag must be the alternative to aggressive farming techniques or Biofuels – multiple reasons
Financial Express 07 (“Burgeoning Biofuel Backlash”; Aug 5; author is a specialist in agribusiness, lexis)
Verily the whole gamut of science and technology, economics and ecology, mortality and morality, have all been pounded and pulverised beyond recognition in one
fell sweep. For some, biofuels made from corn or jatropha have become the golden nectar in the fight against global warming. Unarguably benign sources as they
are, ubiquitous and natural plants, they produce no nasty GHGs that cause climate change. But a backlash is emerging. Environmentalists, economists, and anti-
poverty activists all are raising a bogey from the roof-top. The cultivation of any crop requires energy in ploughing, planting, fertilising,
harvesting and transportation, activities requiring machinery that burns fossil fuel. Modern agriculture relies on large amounts of
fertiliser, fungicides, pesticides, herbicides and a host of other material inputs whose production methods consume fossil fuels. The
further processing of the biomass by fermentation, distillation and other processes consume yet more energy. Finally, there's the
cost of transporting the fuel to filling stations. And since biofuels are more corrosive than petrol or diesel they target to replace,
they can't be pumped through existing pipelines, but mandate rail or tanker trucks. There's more. Intensive cultivation depletes the
soil; eroded soils redeemed by dumping massive doses of fertilisers contribute to the eutrophication of natural water bodies and
damaging aquatic habitat; unchecked use of pesticides contaminates aquifers and soil; and extensive irrigation for monoculture
cropping depletes water resources. The result: land that was till recently raising crops for food is now fuelling crops for energy!
Renewable energy projects will devour huge amounts of land, warns Prof Jesse Ausubel, a researcher of environmental science and
director of the Human Environment programme at the Rockefeller University in New York. Last week in his report in the
International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, he criticises plans for widespread farming of biofuels.
Ausubel argues that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing a
meagre 0.1 watts of power per square metre. The world's largest dam, the Three Gorges power station across the Yangtze in China,
stores nearly 40 billion cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously home to more than one million people. Our own
Narmada dam is scarcely behind in the unprecedented displacement of humans and habitat that does not measure up in terms of the
putative good that is to come from it. In contrast, biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both generating
around 1.2 W to a square metre while photovoltaic solar cells that use sunlight to create electricity, fared the best, at around 6 to 7
watts to a square metre. "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal interference with the landscape. We should
be farming less land, logging less forest and trawling the ocean less, disturbing the landscape less and sparing land for nature" is his
clarion call. Sadly, all the current options for renewable sources of energy pursued are incredibly invasive and aggressive with
regard to nature. Indian bureaucrats charged with the responsibility of developing the blueprint for shoring up our vastly import-led energy demands have from
time to time waxed eloquently about the 63 mn ha of waste land that could be profitably converted to raise non-food crops in these non-arable areas. It would
concomitantly provide relief to a power-thirsty economy while not sacrificing the food security of the country. But that would take sagacity, not to speak of political
will to do what's right by the country. Will we be fortunate to realise such dreams in our lifetime?
     Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
     Gonzo                                                                                                                                                          191/448


                                                 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULUTRE 1NC 2/4

     Sustainable Agriculture is necessary to reduce environmental harms of pesticides, reduce water use, and is a pre-requisite
     to renewables
     BusinessWorld 06 (“Sustainable Agriculture: growth from ground up”; Pg. S2/6; Oct. 26, lexis)
     The quality and safety of food are vitally important since they relate to the health of populations around the world and represent important consumer concerns. The
     SAI platform undertakes to improve the quality, safety and nutritional value of agricultural products by producing agricultural products
     with balanced nutritional content, ensuring the safety of agricultural products arising from the farm, and minimizing the risks of
     residue (e.g. pesticides residue) in the end-product. Since agricultural performance and profitability are closely linked to the well-being of farmers and
     rural communities, the SAI platform also addresses issues that hinder farmers delivering their inputs and exercising their skills. Specifically,
     its goal will be to build attractive farming livelihoods and vibrant, adaptive rural communities that will empower them and increase
     their self-reliance. From an environmental perspective, sustainable agriculture has the overall objective of preserving the
     environmental resources and favors the use of renewable resources. The SAI platform addresses issues involving the optimal use of natural
     resources and how best to minimize the impact of agricultural activities on different geographical scales. For instance, the availability of land and fertile
     soil is a limited resource that should be protected by strictly guarding against the improper use of fertilizers and pesticides which
     can lead to soil pollution and loss of arable land. Water is also a crucial input for farming, which accounts for a significant part of
     all worldwide water use. Besides agriculture, many other activities and even life itself critically depend on a reliable water supply
     and adequate water quality. Irrigation may be a major threat to water supply and the improper use of pesticides and fertilizers have
     adverse effects on water quality. According to the press material, the SAI platform even encompasses issues related to air pollution. Agriculture, particularly
     with the high use of fertilizers and pesticides, can cause air pollution, leading to negative effects on the environment, plant damage, and contamination of soils or
     water. It also affects the quality of life of adjacent populations. For example, land preparation, fertilization and tillage release greenhouse gases while methane is
     emitted from livestock. Farming transport activities also cause air pollution from fossil fuels. Energy is an essential resource in all
     farming systems. In particular, agriculture uses energy from non-renewable resources. Therefore, sustainable agriculture includes
     the objectives of ensuring that energy inputs from non-renewable resources are minimized; and that when possible, alternative energy sources
     like bio-fuel is used. Aside from these concerns, the SAI platform also tackles issues involving biodiversity, crop health and animal welfare. It is a massive
     undertaking that needs the full support of the private sector, government and academe if it is to have a lasting impact on our lives.

     Observation 4: The Net benefit- Agriculture Expansion
     Turns Case: Agriculture directly contributes to the introduction of methane and N02 in the air, a 60% increase will occur
     by 2030
     Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for sustainable agriculture; Jan;
     School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report,
     http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
     Agriculture directly contributes between 5.1 and 6.1 Pg CO2- eq (10 – 12%) to global greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are mainly in
     the form of methane (3.3 Pg CO2-eq yr-1) and nitrous oxide (2.8 Pg CO2-eq yr-1) whereas the net flux of carbon dioxide is very small (0.04 Pg
     CO2-eq yr-1). Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soils and methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation of cattle constitute the largest
     sources, 38% and 32% of total non-CO2 emissions from agriculture in 2005, respectively. Nitrous oxide emissions are mainly associated with
     nitrogen fertilisers and manure applied to soils. Fertilisers are often applied in excess and not fully used by the crop plants, so that
     some of the surplus is lost as N2O to the atmosphere. Biomass burning (12%), rice production (11%), and manure management (7%) account for the
     rest (Table 1).Clearing of native vegetation for agriculture (i.e. land use change rather than agriculture per se) does release large
     quantities of ecosystem carbon as carbon dioxide (5.9 ± 2.9 Pg CO2-eq yr-1). The magnitude and relative importance of the different sources and
     emissions vary widely between regions. Globally agricultural methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions have increased by 17%
     from 1990 to 2005, and are projected to increase by another 35 – 60% by 2030 driven by growing nitrogen fertiliser use and
     increased livestock production.

a.   Methane
     Fertilizer is energy intensive and adds 600 tonnes of green house gases
     Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for sustainable agriculture; Jan;
     School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report,
     http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
     In addition to the direct agriculture emissions mentioned above, the production of agrochemicals is another important source of greenhouse  gas
     emissions. Especially the life cycle of fertiliser contributes significantly to the overall impact of industrialized agriculture. The
     production of fertilisers is energy intensive, and adds a noticeable amount, between 300 and 600 million tonnes (0.3 - 0.6 Pg) CO2-
     eq yr -1, representing between 0.6 - 1.2% of the world’s total GHGs. The greatest source of GHG emissions from fertiliser
     production is the energy required, which emits carbon dioxide, although nitrate production generates even more CO2-eq in the form
     of nitrous oxide. With the intensification of agriculture, the use of fertilisers has increased from 0.011 Pg N in 1960/61, to 0.091 Pg N in
     2004/2005. Application rates vary greatly between regions with China contributing 40% and Africa 2% to global mineral fertiliser consumption. Compared to
     fertiliser production, other farm operations such as tillage, seeding, application of agrochemicals, harvesting are more variable across the globe with emissions
     between 0.06 and 0.26 Pg CO2-eq yr -1. Irrigation has average global GHG emissions of between 0.05 and 0.68 Pg CO2-eq yr -1.The production of pesticides is a
     comparatively low GHG emitter with 0.003 to 0.14 Pg CO2-eq annually.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           192/448


                                   SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1NC 3/4

Ag emissions from fertilizer and animal methane will result in a 60% increase
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
Agricultural N2O emissions are projected to increase by 35- 60% up to 2030 due to increased nitrogen fertiliser use and increased
animal manure production (FAO, 2002). Similarly, Mosier and Kroeze (2000) and US-EPA (2006a) estimated that N2O emissions
will increase by about 50% by 2020 (relative to 1990). If demands for food increase, and diets shift as projected, then annual
emissions of GHGs from agriculture may escalate further. But improved management practices and emerging technologies may
permit a reduction in emissions per unit of food (or protein) produced, and perhaps also a reduction in emissions per capita food
consumption. If CH4 emissions grow in direct proportion to increases in livestock numbers, then global livestock-related methane
production (from enteric fermentation and manure management) is expected to increase by 60% in the period 1990 to 2030 (FAO,
2002). However, changes in feeding practices and manure management could ameliorate this increase. US-EPA (2006a) forecast
that combined methane emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management will increase by 21% between 2005 and
2020.

Fertilizer not only causes a bigger bang for the buck from methane- the process of creating and distributing it has a large
carbon footprint
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
Fertilisers are increasingly used in agriculture (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The life cycle of fertiliser contributes significantly to the
overall impact of conventional agriculture. The production of fertilisers is energy intensive, and emits about 1.2% of the world’s
total GHGs (Wood and Cowie, 2004). Before 1930, nitrates used to be mined but this practice is now more expensive than the
synthetic fertiliser production using fossil fuel energy with which it has been replaced. There is a great difference between the
energy requirements, and hence GHG emissions, for the production of different types of fertilisers (Table 3). Generally, fertilisers
containing N compounds consume up to 10 times more energy and consequently result in more GHG emissions. In comparison,
fresh manure is a very low carbon emitting alternative when it is available to provide land with nutrients (Lal, 2004c) (Table 3).
However, the actual energy consumed during the production can vary widely as very modern plants have the potential to efficiently
use the heat produced during the reaction process and hence may even have a negative energy balance, for production of nitrate will
also generate nitrous oxide as a by-product. Considering that nitrous oxide has a global warming potential of ~296 compared to
carbon dioxide, this is the main GHG in the nitrate production (Brentrup et al., 2004) (Wood and Cowie, 2004). As a result, nitrous
oxide contributes 26% (0.074 Pg CO2-eq yr-1) of the global total fertiliser production GHG emissions (0.283 Pg CO2-eq yr-1)
(Kongshaug, 1998). The energy consumption of superphosphate and muriate of potash will mainly be associated with mining
activities. Additional greenhouse gas emissions will arise from the transport of these fertilisers as mines are not evenly distributed
around the world (www.fertilizer.org). Generally, transport and storage will add more to the total GHG emission of fertiliser use
(Table 3 & Table 4). The final use of the fertiliser on the farm will have again a variety of impacts. The machinery used to apply the
fertiliser will require fuel, adding to the GHG emissions. Fertilisers are not used fully by the crop, which on average globally only
recover about 50% of fertiliser N supplied (Eickhout et al., 2006). Consequently, a great proportion accumulates in soils and is
either lost directly as nitrous oxide, or leaches into water courses, enhancing downstream, indirect nitrous oxide emissions. The
amount lost will greatly depend on many other factors such as climate, soil and management practices (Brentrup et al., 2004)
(Eickhout et al., 2006).

Animals create the largest amount of methane- methane is 20 times worse than c02
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
When farming ruminant animals, the animals themselves produce the greatest amount of GHGs (up to 60%) through enteric
fermentation in the rumen. Other components of the overall GHG emissions contribute roughly similar amounts, with the use of
diesel and electricity being at the lower end (Casey and Holden, 2006). Globally, livestock is the most important anthropogenic
source of methane emissions (US- EPA, 2006a). Methane is a powerful GHG with ≈ 20 times the global warming potential of CO2.

Extend their global warming impacts, they actually cause them
     Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
     Gonzo                                                                                                                           193/448


                                        SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 1NC 4/4

b.   Deforestation
     Intensive land use decreases carbon stocks which means more lands must be converted to farm
     Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
     sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
     Generally, intensively managed land will have lower carbon stocks than natural vegetation (Table 5 & Figure 5). Croplands have
     the lowest “carbon stock concentration” of all earth biomes, except for deserts and semideserts. In contrast, wetlands have by far
     the greatest “carbon stock concentration” (more than eight times that of croplands) but they do not even contribute twice as much to
     the global carbon stock due to the small percentage of land covered by wetlands (Table 5). As a result, the conversion from one
     land use to croplands can have a considerable effect on carbon stocks (Figure 5). Houghton (1999, 2003) estimated the net global
     emissions resulting from land cover change to be about 8.1 Pg CO2 yr -1 in the 1990s (compared with 23.4 Pg CO2 yr -1 from
     fossil-fuel emissions). Here, agriculture was the most important contributor to land conversion (croplands 68%, pastures 13%,
     cultivation shift 4%, harvest of wood 16% and establishment of plantations -1%) (Houghton, 1999) and contributes to around 20%
     of total GHG emissions. In contrast, the IPCC published values of 5.9 ± 2.9 in 2001 (IPCC, 2001). Estimates of land use changes
     are probably the most uncertain within the GHG inventory (Figure 6 & Figure 7), as actual emissions will depend on several factors
     (Ramankutty et al., 2007). Despite the uncertainty, it is clear that land use change is a major contributor to global GHG emissions.
     In some areas, such as e.g. Brazil, it will even be a more important source of GHG than fossil fuels (Cerri et al., 2007). Brazil alone
     contributed 5% of total global GHG emissions by deforestation in 1990 (Fearnside, 2005). However , the total emissions resulting
     from this deforestation will be even greater, since future changes in land use could result in further emissions (Fearnside, 2005).

     Deforestation destroys the environment, increases warming, destroys water supplies, leads to infections, and destroys
     biodiversity
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Land-use activities—whether converting natural landscapes for human use or changing management practices on human-dominated
     lands—have transformed a large proportion of the planet's land surface. By clearing tropical forests, practicing subsistence agriculture,
     intensifying farmland production, or expanding urban centers, human actions are changing the world's landscapes in pervasive ways
     (1, 2) (Fig. 1, fig. S1, and table S1). Although land-use practices vary greatly across the world, their ultimate outcome is generally the
     same: the acquisition of natural resources for immediate human needs, often at the expense of degrading environmental conditions.
     Several decades of research have revealed the environmental impacts of land use throughout the globe, ranging from changes in
     atmospheric composition to the extensive modification of Earth's ecosystems (3–6). For example, land-use practices have played a role
     in changing the global carbon cycle and, possibly, the global climate: Since 1850, roughly 35% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions
     resulted directly from land use (7). Land-cover changes also affect regional climates through changes in surface energy and water
     balance (8, 9). Humans have also transformed the hydrologic cycle to provide freshwater for irrigation, industry, and domestic
     consumption (10, 11). Furthermore, anthropogenic nutrient inputs to the biosphere from fertilizers and atmospheric pollutants now
     exceed natural sources and have widespread effects on water quality and coastal and freshwater ecosystems (4, 12). Land use has also
     caused declines in biodiversity through the loss, modification, and fragmentation of habitats; degradation of soil and water; and
     overexploitation of native species (13) (SOM Text S1).
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          194/448


                     LINK EXTIONSIONS – LIVESTOCK  DEFORESTATION

Livestock is the biggest cause for deforestation
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
Livestock is the world’s largest user of land with a shift from grazing to the consumption of feed crops. Industrial livestock systems
are now often separated from feed crops and the end consumer to take advantage of lower costs and potentially less rigid
environmental regulations (Naylor et al., 2005). This results in further emissions from transport. The great demand of feed and
space for animal farming furthers cultivation of land, especially deforestation of rain forest. Generally, intensive farming uses more
supplement feed rather than feeding the livestock on grassland (Eickhout et al. 2006). Some of these feeds are often not produced in
the same country. Here, soya plays an important role as a high energy feed for which Brazil is one of the main producing countries
(FAOSTAT, 2007). Intensive animal farming indirectly supports the deforestation of Brazilian rain forest for soya plantation
(Fearnside, 2005) with some European countries showing a negative carbon / GHG balance due to livestock feed imports (Janssens
et al., 2005). On the other hand, the use of supplement feed for ruminants is known to reduce methane emissions from enteric
fermentation (IPCC WGIII Ch.8, 2007). The impact of feed crops can be reduced if industrial food waste (e.g. mash from ethanol
production or residue from vegetable oil milling), which is not suitable for human consumption, is used as animal feed. This
approach covers about 70% of the animal feed in the Netherlands (Nonhebel, 2004). Intensive animal farming may also result in
overgrazing of grassland, which may then reduce the carbon stocks and even lead to desertification (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
     Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
     Gonzo                                                                                                                            195/448


                                        IMPACT EXTENSIONS – BIODIVERSITY

1.   Food Production- kills the ecosystem, kills bees, turn: degrades water supplies and land
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Although modern agriculture has been successful in increasing food production, it has also caused extensive environmental damage.
     For example, increasing fertilizer use has led to the degradation of water quality in many regions (4, 12, 13) (fig. S2B). In addition,
     some irrigated lands have become heavily salinized, causing the worldwide loss of 1.5 million hectares of arable land per year, along
     with an estimated $11 billion in lost production (20). Up to 40% of global croplands may also be experiencing some degree of soil
     erosion, reduced fertility, or overgrazing (20). The loss of native habitats also affects agricultural production by degrading the services
     of pollinators, especially bees (23, 24). In short, modern agricultural land-use practices may be trading short-term increases in food
     production for long-term losses in ecosystem services, including many that are important to agriculture.
     [Insert Bees key to biodiversity]

2.    Infectious disease- deforestation increases proximity of people and livestock which leads to the transmission and mutation of
     infectious diseases
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Habitat modification, road and dam construction, irrigation, increased proximity of people and livestock, and the concentration or
     expansion of urban environments all modify the transmission of infectious disease and can lead to outbreaks and emergence episodes
     (44). For example, increasing tropical deforestation coincides with an upsurge of malaria and/or its vectors in Africa, Asia, and Latin
     America, even after accounting for the effects of changing population density (44, 45). Disturbing wildlife habitat is also of particular
     concern, because 75% of human diseases have links to wildlife or domestic animals (44). Land use has been associated with the
     emergence of bat-borne Nipah virus in Malaysia (46), cryptosporidiosis in Europe and North America, and a range of foodborne
     illnesses globally (47). In addition, road building is linked to increased bushmeat hunting, which may have played a key role in the
     emergence of human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2; simian foamy virus was recently documented in hunters, confirming this
     mechanism of cross-species transfer (48). The combined effects of land use and extreme climatic events can also have serious impacts,
     both on direct health outcomes (e.g., heat mortality, injury, fatalities) and on ecologically mediated diseases. For example, Hurricane
     Mitch, which hit Central America in 1998, exhibited these combined effects: 9,600 people perished, widespread water- and vector-
     borne diseases ensued, and one million people were left homeless (49). Areas with extensive deforestation and settlements on degraded
     hill-sides or floodplains suffered the greatest morbidity and mortality (50).

3.    Freshwater- water demands trade off with freshwater which equals drought, degradation of water quality which means more
     disease, the destruction of fish and depletion of oxygen
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Land use can disrupt the surface water balance and the partitioning of precipitation into evapotranspiration, runoff, and groundwater
     flow. Surface runoff and river discharge generally increase when natural vegetation (especially forest) is cleared (25, 26). For instance,
     the Tocantins River basin in Brazil showed a 25% increase in river discharge between 1960 and 1995, coincident with expanding
     agriculture but no major change in precipitation (26). Water demands associated with land-use practices, especially irrigation, directly
     affect freshwater supplies through water withdrawals and diversions. Global water withdrawals now total 3900 km3 yr-1, or 10% of
     the total global renewable resource, and the consumptive use of water (not returned to the watershed) is estimated to be 1800 to 2300
     km3 yr-1 (22, 27) (fig. S3A). Agriculture alone accounts for 85% of global consumptive use (22). As a result, many large rivers,
     especially in semiarid regions, have greatly reduced flows, and some routinely dry up (21, 28). In addition, the extraction of
     groundwater reserves is almost universally unsustainable and has resulted in declining water tables in many regions (21, 28) (fig. S2, B
     and C). Water quality is often degraded by land use. Intensive agriculture increases erosion and sediment load, and leaches nutrients
     and agricultural chemicals to groundwater, streams, and rivers. In fact, agriculture has become the largest source of excess nitrogen and
     phosphorus to waterways and coastal zones (12, 29). Urbanization also substantially degrades water quality, especially where
     wastewater treatment is absent. The resulting degradation of inland and coastal waters impairs water supplies, causes oxygen depletion
     and fish kills, increases blooms of cyanobacteria (including toxic varieties), and contributes to waterborne disease (12, 30).
     Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
     Gonzo                                                                                                                            196/448


                                      IMPACT EXTENSIONS – DEFORESTATION

4.   Deforestation- degrade ecosystems, introduces pest and pathogens, and shifts forest conditions
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Land-use activities, primarily for agricultural expansion and timber extraction, have caused a net loss of 7 to 11 million km2 of forest
     in the past 300 years (17, 32, 33). Highly managed forests, such as timber plantations in North America and oil-palm plantations in
     Southeast Asia, have also replaced many natural forests and now cover 1.9 million km2 worldwide (31). Many land-use practices (e.g.,
     fuel-wood collection, forest grazing, and road expansion) can degrade forest ecosystem conditions—in terms of productivity, biomass,
     stand structure, and species composition—even without changing forest area. Land use can also degrade forest conditions indirectly by
     introducing pests and pathogens, changing fire-fuel loads, changing patterns and frequency of ignition sources, and changing local
     meteorological conditions (34).

5.   Climate shift- land conversion leads to urban heat island which dramatically increases the temperature as well as exacerbate
     current pollution
     Jonathan A. Foley et al 05 (“Global consequences of land Use”; Science 22, vol 309. No.5734. pp. 570-574; Center for Sustainability
     and the Global Environment (SAGE), Senior Fellow at University of Wisconsin,
     http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5734/570?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=foley+g
     lobal+land&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT )
     Land conversion can alter regional climates through its effects on net radiation, the division of energy into sensible and latent heat, and
     the partitioning of precipitation into soil water, evapotranspiration, and runoff. Modeling studies demonstrate that land-cover changes
     in the tropics affect climate largely through water-balance changes, but changes in temperate and boreal vegetation influence climate
     primarily through changes in the surface radiation balance (38). Large-scale clearing of tropical forests may create a warmer, drier
     climate (39), whereas clearing temperate and boreal forest is generally thought to cool the climate, primarily through increased albedo
     (40) (table S2, A and B). Urban "heat islands" are an extreme case of how land use modifies regional climate. The reduced vegetation
     cover, impervious surface area, and morphology of buildings in cityscapes combine to lower evaporative cooling, store heat, and warm
     the surface air (41). A recent analysis of climate records in the United States suggests that a major portion of the temperature increase
     during the last several decades resulted from urbanization and other land-use changes (9). Land-cover change has also been implicated
     in changing the regional climate in China; recent analyses suggest that the daily diurnal temperature range has decreased as a result of
     urbanization (42). Land-use practices also change air quality by altering emissions and changing the atmospheric conditions that affect
     reaction rates, transport, and deposition. For example, tropospheric ozone (O3) is particularly sensitive to changes in vegetation cover
     and biogenic emissions. Land-use practices often determine dust sources, biomass burning, vehicle emission patterns, and other air
     pollution sources. Furthermore, the effects of land use on local meteorological conditions, primarily in urban heat islands, also affect
     air quality: Higher urban temperatures generally cause O3 to increase (43)
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           197/448


                                        AT: NO BRINK TO BIODIVERSITY

Sustainable Ag is key to promoting U.S. national interests and we have a moral obligation
U.S. Fed News 08 (“Sen. Biden introduces legislation calling for leadership to protect global biodiversity”, June 24, lexis)
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) introduced a resolution today calling for the
United States to assume a leadership role in international efforts to protect biological diversity around the world. Presently, one out
of every ten species of plants and animals on Earth faces extinction, a number that could reach two-thirds by the end of this century.
The growing threat of extinction is the result of several factors, including climate change, mismanagement of natural resources in
developing nations and natural phenomena. Sen. Biden's legislation calls for the U.S. to lead an internationally-coordinated effort to
identify and protect critically endangered regions around the world. "With one out of every ten species facing extinction, with
habitats declining, and with developing countries searching to build a better economic future while protecting their natural
environments, now is the time for renewed efforts to protect our living world," said Senator Biden. "The ten colleagues with whom
I worked on this resolution understand that protecting our global biodiversity is actually in our own national interest. Sustainable
agricultural practices promise sustainable economies in the developing world. A stable climate will reduce the threat of water
shortages, shifting growing seasons, population movements, and resource wars. Protecting habitats not only protects the rich
diversity of life on earth - protecting habitats will preserve some of the most basic building blocks of our economies and societies.
"Moreover, we have a moral obligation to protect biodiversity. Ensuring that we can feed and clothe and shelter millions more
people while preserving the elaborate tapestry of creation will allow our children and grandchildren to inherit the rich planet that we
were bequeathed," added Senator Biden. 's full congressional record statement is below. Mr. BIDEN. "Mr. President, the evidence
is clear. We stand at the brink of major losses among the living species on our planet. By the end of this century, as many as two
out of every three plant and animal species could be in danger of extinction. This disturbing trend has many causes, but several are
clear and manmade - they are our responsibility and they are within our control."Our industrial emissions are changing our world's
climate and, in so doing, drastically altering habitats - habitats already threatened by deforestation and other land-use changes.
Unsustainable fishing and the spread of invasive species due to enhanced global commerce pose similar manmade challenges.
"That is why, Mr. President, I am introducing, along with Senators Snowe, Boxer, Lugar, Kerry, Specter, Menendez, Brownback,
Bayh, Stabenow, and Feingold, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should take a leadership role
in protecting international biodiversity. With one out of every ten species facing extinction, with habitats declining, and with
developing countries searching to build a better economic future while protecting their natural environments, now is the time for
renewed efforts to protect our living world.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         198/448


                                  2NC – DEFORESTATION IMPACT CALC

   Deforestation is the impact you have to look at first
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
The emissions of GHGs from agriculture depend on the combination of production system and site factors. The same production
system can have different impacts on different soil types, etc. On mineral soils, the amount of standing biomass (above - and below
ground) and annual input of organic matter to the soil will determine carbon storage. The most important carbon mitigation
mechanism in the short term is to avoid deforestation, primarily in tropical countries (IPCC WGIII Ch.8, 2007). This strategy
has other environmental benefits as well. Any practice that can give rural income without more use of land, or by taking degraded
land back into production, should therefore be encouraged. All benefits obtained on a per hectare basis of one land use type - have
to be seen in connection with the total area of land required to produce the amount of food or other product needed.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          199/448


                                                SOLVENCY – WARMING

Sustainable ag can store more carbon and is more energy efficient- Morocco proves
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
Smallholder farms may often store more carbon than commercial arable agriculture due to more trees (Roshetko et al., 2002), but it
is not known if they also use a larger area to produce the same amount of food (see below). There are not many studies where small
scale and intensive farming systems are compared. Mrini et al., (2002) compares energy use under traditional and intensive farming
systems in Morocco, and concludes that the energy use is less in the traditional system, which uses less energy per unit produced
(0.73 and 1.10 MJ kg-1 respectively). The main reason for the difference in energy use between the two systems was the irrigation
system used. However, they also compared their results with other studies of intensive and traditional farming systems, and they
found that generally, the traditional farming systems used less energy per unit of product. Although it can be difficult to compare
systems, it does suggest that traditional systems may be more energy efficient (at least measured on per product rather than per ha
basis). The reasoning for this may be less use of machinery.

Organic crops consume less energy and fertilizers and emit less
Pete Smith et al 08 (“Cool Farming: Climate impacts of agricultural and mitigation potential”; Greenpeace; Campaigning for
sustainable agriculture; Jan; School of biological Sciences, senior fellow at the University of Aberdeen, a lead author on the latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change report, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report)
Organic field crops and animal products generally consume less primary energy than non-organic counterparts, owing in part to the
use of legumes to fix N rather than fuel to make synthetic fertilisers (Williams et al., 2006). In relation to this, many studies have
found that the emissions related to crop production are lower in organic farms than in conventional farms when measured as a per
hectare basis, but this advantage of organic production is less clear in units of crop yield, since yields are lower for some crops in
organic farms (Flessa et al., 2001, Tzilivakis et al., 2005, Petersen et al., 2006). Organic farmers usually apply practices that
promote carbon sequestration in the soil and could favour GHG savings from organic cropping. Common organic practices like the
use of cover crops, growing trees and shrubs around croplands and avoiding bare soils are all proposed mitigation options for
agriculture (IPCC WGIII Ch.8, 2007) already in place in many organic farms worldwide. More scientific research is needed to
evaluate the specific carbon benefits of these practices in organic farms.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          200/448


                                       GLOBAL SOLVENCY – LAND USE

The World recognizes the need for sustainable agriculture- Africa Proves
Japan Economic Newswire June 27 2008 (“Time to pay attention to land degradation, not just C02:UNCCD; International News,
lexis)
If we want to tackle the food crisis in Africa, we should improve the productivity of the land," said Gnacadja, who was in Japan for
the Tokyo International Conference on African Development. "As a matter of fact, the geography of poverty coincides with that of
the degradation of land, worldwide including in Africa." To raise public awareness, this year's June 17 World Day to Combat
Desertification to be celebrated Tuesday will promote the theme "Combating land degradation for sustainable agriculture." Events
ranging from lectures and exhibitions to concerts and school visits will be held around the world, including Paris, New Delhi, Cape
Town, San Juan and Bonn, where the UNCCD secretariat is located. Sustainable agriculture calls for maintaining and restoring soil
fertility through efforts in various dimensions. These include economically such as adjusting profitability and productivity of farms,
and socially by improving quality of life in rural areas and providing better training and education. Gnacadja also urged Japan to
raise the profile of the potential of soil and land to cope with the challenges of climate change and food crisis when hosting the G-8
summit July 7 to 9. "We really need now the commitment of the leaders of the world, including the ones of G-8, to express their
willingness, to set vision and objectives on how we can better use this land," the executive secretary said. The climate change and
African development issues will be major topics at the summit when leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia and the United States meet at Hokkaido's Lake Toya resort. The food crisis is also likely to be discussed. In addition, leaders
from emerging nations such as China and South Africa will attend outreach sessions at the summit. "We are calling for more
attention under the climate change agenda to the land potentials," Gnacadja said. "If we fail, we will all get cooked between the
land and the atmosphere, like a hamburger."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                              201/448


                       *** PRESSURE ISRAEL COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                             202/448

                                                             PRESSURE ISRAEL 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should pressure Israel to disclose and eliminate its nuclear weapons
program.

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

Pressuring Israel resolves the perception of a US double standard on proliferation
Stout, staff writer for the International Herald Tribune, 11/30/2007 (David, “A Mideast nuclear crisis,” lexis)
Although Israel has never publicly acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, scientists and arms experts have no doubt that it has them,
and the U.S. reluctance to pressure Israel to disarm has made the United States vulnerable to accusations that it is a preacher
with a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons in the Middle East. Kissinger's memo, written barely two years
after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, as
subsequent U.S. administrations have done. But Kissinger reflected at length on the quandary faced by the United States. ''Israel will not take
us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need,'' he wrote,
referring to a pending sale of U.S. Phantom fighter jets to Israel.

Eliminating that perception is key to global nonproliferation
Hyo’n-to, columnist for the Nodong Sinmun newspaper, 11/16/2007
(Ri, “Unfair Double Standard Policy Which Increases the Risk of Nuclear War,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, lexis)
As is known, the United States has actively encouraged and cooperated with Israel's nuclear armament plan since long ago. In the
late 1960s, the US Nixon administration provided large computers and various types of nuclear facilities to Israel, and in the late 1980s, the first Bush administration
sold 1,500 pieces of nuclear weapons development equipment to Israel behind the scenes. In the 1990s, the United States reportedly gave Israel a
guarantee that it would ward off international pressures on [Israel's] development of nuclear weapons. The United States also tacitly approved
and encouraged Japan's manoeuvres to stock up on plutonium. This is not all. When the nuclear issue occurs with the countries following [the United States], making
the entire world abuzz, the United States looks the other way and just strokes its own beard. Bolton, a representative character of the US hard-line
conservative elements, dismissed the possibility of Israeli nuclear threat, saying, "Israel is in special relationship with the United States. I think what
is of utmost importance is that we are convinced there is no threat of Israel's use of nuclear weapons. We view that Israel will not use nuclear weapons against any
country in the region. It is because that country is a democratic state and also because it is in a relationship of alliance with the United States." Without
the United States' patronage and cooperation, it is impossible to think that Japan has ended up possessing enough plutonium to manufacture thousands of nuclear
weapons, and that Israel has secretly stepped up the manoeuvres for nuclear armament to be able to produce and possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact,
the United States picks the countries that have no problems, brands them as some "nuclear criminals" for the sole reason that they are not its allies, and exerts pressures,
threats, and blackmails. The declassified US documents have revealed that in the mid-1970s, the US companies proposed to supply uranium enrichment and
reprocessing plant equipment to Iran. At the time, the United States carried out uranium enrichment and fuel negotiations with Iran's pro-US Pahlavi regime, followed
by an attempt to build reprocessing facilities. Today, however, the United States is making a big thing out of the peaceful nuclear activities by Iran, which goes forth on
the anti-US, independent path, playing the game of taking it to the United Nations and imposing sanctions, and even scheming military attacks. As is shown by these
facts, the United States turns a blind eye to some countries' nuclear weapons development and possession, signs nuclear agreements with them, and intends to promote
nuclear technology cooperation, but for the countries that rub it the wrong way [the United States] viciously manoeuvres to take away even their rights to peaceful
nuclear activities. The US newspaper Washington Post asked why the Bush administration excitedly makes a big thing out of Iran's
nuclear issue but deals with Israel's nuclear weapons possession in a different manner. It went on to point out that this was a clear
application of double standards. The former US President Carter said that the current US administration's double-standard nuclear
policy hampers the world's stability and guarantee for peace, and criticized that "the United States is the culprit of the NPT collapse ."
If the United States maintained a fair stance, it should duly take issue with the nuclear armament manoeuvres of Japan and Israel and stop the double-faced unfair policy
of trying to block peaceful nuclear activities by the countries that have fallen out of [the US] favour while extending nuclear cooperation with some countries. The
United States' unfair conduct results in weakening the binding power of the NPT and driving the world towards a nuclear arms race.
The United States' nuclear arm-twisting policy rendered the NPT useless and pushed the non-nuclear-possessing countries to acquire nuclear means. The United States
steps up the buildup and modernization of the nuclear armed force and blatantly pursues nuclear war while talking about "non-nuclear proliferation." It is because [the
United States] harbours a heinous motive to turn anti-imperialist, independent countries into the sacrificial lambs of its nuclear arm-twisting policy. Eliminating
double standards and abiding by the principle of fairness on the nuclear issue is an important condition to prevent a nuclear
arms race, realize nuclear disarmament, and guarantee the world's peace, security, and safety. Absolutely no one has the authority to
exert dogmatism and tyranny, and this never works in today's world. If the United States threatens and blackmails other countries with its nuclear weapons and opts for
the path of nuclear war, many countries will take measures in response, which will intensify nuclear confrontation and cover the earth with more nuclear weapons. In
such a case, it is clear that the United States' safety will be at risk as well. The United States' security lies in nuclear disarmament, not in nuclear arms
buildup. If the United States truly intends to prevent nuclear proliferation and make efforts for peace, it must stop the application of
double standards and abide by the principle of fairness on the nuclear issue and convert its policy to the abolition of nuclear weapons. The United States must heed
the voice of fair international opinion and get rid of its anti-peace nuclear policy before loudly talking about other countries' fictional "nuclear threat."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                          203/448


                                                     SOLVENCY – PROLIFERATION

Lack of pressure on Israel collapses the NPT, paralyzes nonprolif efforts, and causes war
Chong-son, columnist for Nodong Sinmun newspaper, 2/9/2007
(Kim, “The Unjust Double-Standard Policy That Can Never Be Tolerated,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, lexis)
The United States should have taken issue with the Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the United States has put
absolutely no pressure on Israel. The United States officially decided to adopt a "Do Not Ask, Do Not Tell" policy regarding the Israeli nuclear issue and has
said absolutely no word about the Israel's development of nuclear weapons. Even when the Israeli parliament was openly discussing a nuclear weapon programme, the
United States turned a blind eye to it and remained silent. The United States even gave assurances that it would thwart international pressure over the Israel's
development of nuclear weapons. In this way, the United States' stance on nuclear issues is duplicitous. What is also unfair is the fact that
the United States is blatantly implementing a double-standard policy by promising that it would cooperate with some countries -
which are not NPT signatories - for nuclear technology or by adopting an attitude to conditionally allow peaceful nuclear activities by
some countries. A case in point is the fact that an Asian country's newspaper, saying that the United States' double standards to nuclear
issues is condemned by people, added that the United States is threatening Iran with force of arms, while encouraging Israel. After all,
the United States' stance on nuclear issues is determined by whether other countries are its allies or not. If the question of whether
countries are US allies or not is a standard to determine a position on nuclear issues, the NPT is only a scrap of paper. It is extremely
ridiculous that the United States finds fault with the "nuclear issues" of the countries - which get on its nerves - , kicks up the commotions of applying pressure, and acts
as a "nuclear judge," while overlooking and helping in a unilateral and biased position the development and possession of nuclear weapons by pro-US forces and its
allies. In resolving nuclear issues, there must be only one principle of justice that is equally applied to all countries. With double standards, however, the United States
interprets and handles the issues that arise from resolving nuclear issues to its advantage and tries to impose its demands on other countries. The United States is trying
to apply pressure on the countries - which act against its interests - to achieve its treacherous objectives by using double standards - by applying this standard when it
seems advantageous to it and by applying that standard when it seems unfavourable to it. The attitude the United States adopts towards the nuclear issue of the Korean
peninsula clearly shows where its act of applying double standards has reached. The United States' unjust double standard policy only paralyses
the global nuclear nonproliferation system and destroys international stability. It also makes justice mistakenly perceived as injustice, and
injustice as justice and makes the principle of equality and the principle of fairness unable to stay alive in international relations. The United States' unjust double-
standard policy must never be tolerated.

This destroys US nonprolif credibility – Arab statements prove
Xinhua 9/22/2007
(“Arab nations slam West's double standard on nuclear non-proliferation,” lexis)
Representatives of Arab nations to an IAEA conference on Friday criticized the double standard applied by some western countries on
nuclear non-proliferation. Delegates of Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria and Iraq, said a televised statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that
Israel possessed nuclear weapons had exerted a negative impact on peace, security and stability in the Middle East. It's nuclear activities and establishments have gone
beyond the control of the UN atomic watchdog and thwarted efforts on nuclear non-proliferation, they said. A German television aired a statement by Olmert on Dec.
11, 2006, in which the Israeli prime minister announced that his nation now possessed nuclear weapons. Some countries have provided a political shield
for Israel by applying a double standard on regional security and nuclear non-proliferation, and this had affected the reliability of the
international nuclear non-proliferation system, said the Arab delegates. They called for countries to be aware of Israeli nuclear
capacities, and urged them to pressure for it to abandon the nuclear weapons. The conference failed to pass a resolution on Israels
nuclear capabilities due to opposition from the United States and other western countries.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                         204/448


                                                                  SOLVENCY – NPT

Every recent example proves the NPT stops prolif
Mark Bromley, British-American Security Information Council, ““Planning to be Surprised”:
The US Nuclear Posture Review and its Implications for Arms Control”, BASIC Paper, April 2002,
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP39.htm
While the current situation regarding nuclear proliferation is far from perfect, it is worth remembering how much worse the
situation would be without the NPT in place. In recent years this has been emphasised by the number of states who have
abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes and joined the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states, including Argentina, Belarus,
Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Ukraine. In addition, while many view the examples of North Korea and Iraq as
indicative of the failings of the NPT, it was only through the norms and mechanisms laid down by the Treaty that their nuclear
programmes were first discovered and then halted. A recent report from the US Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
supports this assessment. It concludes that the collapse of the NPT would encourage “states to review their nuclear policies and to
adopt more aggressive policies. In the long run, this strategic environment would likely foster vertical and horizontal
proliferation of nuclear weapons.”[22] The dangers posed by a weakened NPT are real and universally recognised.



NPT collapse causes rapid global proliferation.
Mark Bromley et al, British American Security Information Council analyst, July 20 02 [Bunker Busters: Washington’s Drive for
New Nuclear Weapons, p. 71 http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BB.pdf]
Of all the international regimes to be affected by the NPR, the NPT may suffer the greatest blow. Already an unstable international regime, the
NPT was implicitly or overtly damaged by several of the NPR’s recommendations While the Bush administration has voiced doubts about several multilateral arms
control agreements since its first days in Washington, it has reiterated its strong support for the NPT, a treaty with the purpose of curtailing the spread of nuclear know-
how and cutting existing arsenals. For example, the United States backed the final communiqué from the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in May 2001 which stated,
“We reaffirm our determination to contribute to the implementation of the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference”.128 In addition, a joint communiqué
issued by Bush and Putin on November 13, 2001 committed the United States to undertake “efforts to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.129 Ambassador
Norm Wulf restated Washington’s support for the NPT during the April 2002 Preparatory Committee meeting for the NPT’s 2005 Review Conference when he said,
“The United States continues to view the NPT as the bedrock of the global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.”130
Among Washington’s reasons for supporting the NPT is the treaty’s valuable role in preventing proliferation. Since the NPT’s entry
into force in 1970, a number of states have abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes and joined the NPT as non-nuclear states,
including Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Ukraine. While North Korea and Iraq may be seen as failures of
the NPT, it was only through the mechanisms established by the treaty that their nuclear programmes were first discovered and then
halted. A report from the US Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) supports this assessment. It concludes that the collapse of the
NPT would encourage “states to review their nuclear policies and to adopt more aggressive policies. In the long run, this strategic
environment would likely foster vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.”131 The dangers posed by a weakened NPT
are real and universally recognised.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            205/448


                                                      SOLVENCY - NPT
Statistical evidence proves our argument
Jim Walsh, Director of the Managing the Atom Project and Fellow in the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, “Learning from Past Success: The NPT and
the Future of Non-proliferation”, The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, October 2005,
http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/no41.pdf
There are several types of arguments that support the view that the NPT has been a success. The first type is statistical.
Statistical One set of statistics looks at nuclear outcomes in the aggregate. In particular, one can point to a) the declining rate of
proliferation over time, b) the small percentage of countries that became nuclear weapons states compared with the number of
countries that considered doing so, and c) the declining number of countries interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. Proponents
cite this record of restraint and make the additional point that these positive developments follow or coincide with the
establishment of the treaty. Consider, for example, the rate of proliferation. Measured as number of new nuclear weapons states per
decade, the rate of proliferation peaked in the 1960s and began to decline in the 1970s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the NPT
came into force in 1970. Sceptics could rightly point out that the chart does not include North Korea. Moreover, it might be argued
that the chart, while dramatic, is an artefact of small numbers. With so few cases, one cannot be especially confident in the
conclusions. North Korea is not reflected in the chart, in part, because their nuclear status is unclear. Most analysts believe that,
consistent with North Korean claims, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) possesses at least one device. On the other
hand, some long-time observers would not be surprised if it turned out that Pyongyang, in fact, had no nuclear weapons. More
importantly, the DPRK has repeatedly suggested that it is willing to renounce its arsenal, in which case the corrected chart would
nevertheless exhibit a declining rate of proliferation. Indeed, as Matthew Bunn has observed, even if one includes the DPRK as a
weapons state, there are the same number of nuclear weapons states today as there were 15 years ago.21 It is certainly true that
the chart reflects a small number of cases, but that, of course, is the point. The very fact that there are a small number of cases
suggests that the treaty has been successful. Regardless, one has to use the data that is available, and it points to a thirty-year decline
in the rate of proliferation. As discussed above, the number of countries that became nuclear weapons states is relatively small, but
evidence of nuclear restraint is not only found in this small number of states but in the modest percentage of countries that
acquired nuclear weapons. A much larger number of countries considered, inherited, or acquired a nuclear option but maintained or
reverted to a nonnuclear status. Indeed, 75% of countries that could have become nuclear weapons states are instead non-nuclear
weapons states. A final statistical measure is the number of countries that aspire to become nuclear weapons states. Contemporary
analysts focus on North Korea and Iran, but how does that compare with previous decades? There are, in fact, fewer states seeking
nuclear weapons today than at any point since WWII. The 1960s had the most nuclear aspirants. Indeed, the number of countries that
were interested in acquiring nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s is roughly double the total number of countries seeking nuclear
weapons for the subsequent three decades combined. As threatening as it may seem that a DPRK or Iran might seek to be nuclear
weapons states, policy makers from decades past found themselves in a far more threatening situation in terms of proliferation.22
Simply put, since the NPT, fewer countries have had nuclear ambitions.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          206/448


                                             SOLVENCY – SOFT POWER
Our double standard on Israel destroys hegemony, soft power, and global nonproliferation
Bisharat, professor of law at Hastings College, 12/11/2005
(George, “Should Israel Give Up its Nukes?,” http://www.serve.com/~vanunu/nukes/20051211common.html)
Limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is a pivotal U.S. foreign policy objective. As the sole nation ever to have employed them, we
bear a special responsibility to prevent their use in the future. With regard to the Middle East, we rightly worry not only about the
potential use of the weapons themselves but about the political leverage bestowed on those who would possess them. However, there
is an Achilles heel in our nonproliferation policy: the double standard that U.S. administrations since the 1960s have applied with
respect to Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Israel's suspected arsenal includes chemical, biological and about 100 to 200 nuclear
warheads, and the capacity to deliver them. Initially, the United States opposed Israel's nuclear weapons program. President Kennedy
dispatched inspectors to the Dimona generating plant in Israel's south, and he cautioned Israel against developing atomic weapons.
Anticipating the 1962 visit of American inspectors, Israel reportedly constructed a fake wall at Dimona to conceal its weapons
production. Since then, no U.S. administration has effectively pressured Israel to either halt its program or to submit to inspections
under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has Israel been required to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The
apparent rationale: Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern. Yet this rationale neglects a
fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them. Israel's nuclear capability has
clearly fueled WMD ambitions within the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, for example, in an April 1990 speech to his military,
threatened to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack with chemical weapons - the "poor man's atomic bomb." Washington's
inconsistency on the nuclear issue in the Middle East has been terribly corrosive of American legitimacy throughout the world,
and a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally. Nor is our international legitimacy all that is at stake. During the 1973
Arab-Israeli war, a panicky Israel, facing early battlefield losses, threatened a nuclear strike. This evoked a massive arms shipment
from the United States, eventually permitting Israel to turn the tide of the war - demonstrating the kinds of pressures that nuclear
powers can apply, even on allies. Although many view Israel's victory with favor, it surely enabled subsequent decades of Israeli
intransigence over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and has contributed to the impasse afflicting the region. The study's
authors include retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute
for Near East Policy - in short, no enemies of Israel. Their suggestion is comparatively mild: Israel should take small, reversible steps
toward nuclear disarmament to encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, Israeli leaders reportedly have already
demurred. One can anticipate the bipartisan stampede of U.S. lawmakers to denounce the recommendation should it win official U.S.
backing. That would be a shame. Sooner or later, common sense must prevail in our Middle East policy. Otherwise, we will continue
to run our global stature into the ground.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           207/448


                               AT: CP DESTROYS ISRAELI RELATIONS 1/2

US-Israel relations resilient
Mitchell G. Bard, Exec. Dir. Am-Israeli Coop Enterprise, 1997, ME Q., June
These pervasive ties create a durable context which absorb many of the vagaries of current politics. Take the election of
Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel in May 1996, an event might have augered a deterioration in U.S.-Israel relations.
Netanyahu's platform on the peace process was at odds with American policy. Within weeks of Netanyahu's victory it became
clear that the overall relationship was as close as ever. Netanyahu visited the United States in a near triumphal tour, charming
Clinton, addressing a joint session of Congress, and causing gridlock on the streets of Manhattan. Differences between leaders in
Israel and the United States are relatively narrow, being primarily about disagreements over the means to common ends.
Certain issues, such as unilateral Israeli actions in Jerusalem and building settlements, have consistently provoked tensions --
most recently the building at Har Homa. These spats produce some public and private recriminations, but do not much affect the
overall relationship. In the worst case, an American administration may seek to pressure the Israelis and might even reduce
the level of cooperation (for example, by suspending arms deliveries or reducing strategic cooperation), but the ties today are so
broad and deep that the alliance is unlikely to crack. Unlike Dwight Eisenhower in 1956-57, no president today can credibly
threaten a cutoff of aid, for Congress would not support such action. Economic, academic, and personal relations between
citizens of the two countries are largely immune to political vagaries. Further development of this remarkable relationship
might be retarded, but not reversed.

US-Israeli relations motivate Bin Laden and other terrorists
Mearsheimer, professor of political science at UChicago, and Walt, professor of government at Harvard, 2006
(John J. and Stephen M., “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” working paper for John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ksg001/israel_lobby_and_US.pdf, accessed July 7, 2007)
More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards:
rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S.
support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror
more difficult.15 There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s
presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to
punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to
highlight this issue.16 Equally important, unconditional U.S. support for Israel makes it easier for extremists like bin Laden to rally
popular support and to attract recruits. Public opinion polls confirm that Arab populations are deeply hostile to American support for
Israel, and the U.S. State Department’s Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim world found that “citizens in
these countries are genuinely distressed at the plight of the Palestinians and at the role they perceive the United States to be
playing.”17

Weak U.S.-Israeli relations are critical to gain vital Muslim support for the war on terrorism
Stratfor ‘01
(Sea Change in US-Israeli Relations Global Policy Forum, 9-18,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0928stratfor.htm)
In responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington needs Muslim cooperation, especially in obtaining intelligence on fundamentalist
groups. A coalition with Muslim support would also give the United States political cover in carrying out operations against countries
like Afghanistan. But Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation difficult. Some Muslim states are holding
Washington's feet to the fire, hoping to reduce U.S. concessions to Israel. Other regimes such as Egypt and Jordan face massive
domestic pressure from fundamentalists, and in order to cooperate, need Washington to visibly reduce its support for Israel in order to
avoid destabilization.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                             208/448


                                            AT: CP DESTROYS ISRAELI RELATIONS

Extinction
Alexander ‘03
(Yonah, Prof, Dir – Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, 8-28, Lexis)
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and
unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning
national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices"
strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely,
provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people
seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated
if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of
the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad]
and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return,
Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the
Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that
strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase
terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception
continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past
experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term
deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The
assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in
Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror.
Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to
the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may
be: For without victory, there is no survival."

Close US-Israeli ties cause Egyptian instability
Stratfor ‘01
(Sea Change in US-Israeli Relations Global Policy Forum, 9-18,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0928stratfor.htm)
In responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington needs Muslim cooperation, especially in obtaining intelligence on fundamentalist
groups. A coalition with Muslim support would also give the United States political cover in carrying out operations against countries
like Afghanistan. But Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation difficult. Some Muslim states are holding
Washington's feet to the fire, hoping to reduce U.S. concessions to Israel. Other regimes such as Egypt and Jordan face massive
domestic pressure from fundamentalists, and in order to cooperate, need Washington to visibly reduce its support for Israel in
order to avoid destabilization.

Results in nuclear war
St. Louis Post Dispatch ‘92
           (11-19, Lexis)
The government cannot provide the kind of services - health care, food, transportation and even education - that the fundamentalists
have provided to Egypt's poor. The renegade actions of the fundamentalists matter because Egypt is the largest Arab nation, with a
great following in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Were its government to fall in a coup and the National Democratic Party deposed
after 40 years of one-party rule, the Middle East would tremble in a way not felt since the fall of the shah of Iran. Egypt's treaty with
Israel would be swept aside, and a brutal, possibly nuclear war could be the outcome. The Middle East would be thrown into great
upheaval, as states, rulers and people absorb the shocks and react accordingly. Fundamentalists in moderate Arab countries such as
Jordan would be inspired to revolt too. The impact would be devastating for stability in the short and long run. World leaders can help
to prevent these events by focusing on Egypt and helping it with its grave problems of overpopulation, underemployment and poverty.
It is too glib to say that relative prosperity will keep Egypt out of the coup makers' reach.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                  209/448


             *** COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              210/448

                                        COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN 1NC


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




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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         211/448
                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         212/448


                                   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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          213/448


                         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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            214/448


                                          SOLVENCY – PROLIFERATION


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.

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              215/448
                                           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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        216/448


                            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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         217/448
                                           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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                   218/448


                                        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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       219/448


                                             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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        220/448
                                            NET BENEFIT – ELECTIONS

Obama supports ratifying CTBT
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)

Obama has already signaled his intentions to push for ratification of the CTBT should he be elected. McCain has promised to
reexamine the CTBT, perhaps realizing that the U.S. may be better off living under such a treaty than without. Either Obama or
McCain is going to have the golden opportunity to make history by ratifying this landmark treaty. By doing so, the next president can
set the conditions for deep reduction of nuclear arsenals and perhaps, for their complete elimination.




Obama supports ratifying CTBT while McCain does not
Zeenews ’08 (Zeenews; “McCain/Obama may link Indo-US N-deal to CTBT: Talbott”;
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=453996&sid=WOR; July 08, 2008)

Obama, the 47-year-old first-time senator from Illinois, has been forward-leaning with regard to US ratification of the CTBT, Talbott
noted.
At the same time, McCain, the 72-year-old Vietnam war veteran who voted against the treaty's ratification in 1998, has said he might
reconsider his position, since he has an overall posture that is much more favourable toward the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)
than Bush's.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        221/448


          NET BENEFIT – CONGRESS AGENDA?? (I THINK THESE FLOW AFF)


CTBT Ratification costs political capital
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)

During the Cold War the existence of a bipartisan foreign policy consensus meant that the Soviet Union could expect a certain amount
of continuity from Republican and Democratic administrations. Indeed, the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations
staunchly supported arms control, signing the ABM Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty (SALT) I Interim Agreement, the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, START I, and START II. By contrast, now many—if not most—Republicans oppose arms
control. Arms control negotiations demand significant effort and political capital, and Democrats may be reluctant to expend such
energy for fear of looking soft on defense. As the Senate’s 1999 rejection of the CTBT shows, ratification poses a high hurdle for arms
control agreements; a minority of 34 senators can filibuster any treaty. In addition, international consensus on arms control measures
can take decades to develop, and foreign governments may be reluctant to participate if they expect Republican administrations to
abandon formal arms control efforts later.

Despite being popular, nuclear disarmament will not become an issue
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)
Opinion polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports changes to the US nuclear posture, but the public does not vote based on
nuclear issues and there has not been a national debate about nuclear weapons since the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s. With
no public discussion of nuclear policy, the United States has retained a Cold War-era nuclear posture by default. One participant noted
that this problem will only become more acute as fewer Americans remember a time without nuclear weapons; we are approaching a
point at which people will stop questioning why we have them.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                   222/448


                       *** F-22 COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            223/448


                                                        F-22 CP 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should provide funding to the Department of Defense to purchase
and maintain the needed number of F-22 raptor tactical fighters.

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

Contention 2 is Solvency:


F-22 planes key to US air superiority.
Seth Weingberger, Prof. of Intl Rels and Political Philosophy at Univ. of Pudget Sound, “Here Comes The F-22”, 1/9/2008

Assuming the Air Force is not being extra-cautious with the F-15s to encourage the purchase of more F-22s (such an assumption
shouldn't be seen as an indictment of the Air Force, but rather a recognition of the way in which bureaucratic incentives affect decision
making), the structural problems emerging in the F-22 does seem to recommend increasing the complement of F-22s. The F-15s are
now, on average, 25 years old, and the F-16s are even older. The F-22 will keep the US Air Force unchallenged in the skies and will
serve as a deterrent against potential rivals attempting to challenge US air superiority. Air dominance is such a vital component of US
military strategy; it would be unacceptable to let the gap between the US and other states' air forces shrink. Not all military systems
are worth the investment. But the F-22 is.


High level air power key to United States hegemony – solves all their offense
Thomas Donelly, Research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”,
2000 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

The reconstitution of the stateside Air Force as a large-scale, warfighting force will complicate the service’s plans to reconfigure itself
for the purposes of expeditionary operations. But the proliferation of overseas bases should reduce many, if not all, of the burdens of
rotational contingency operations. Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first U.S. military force to
arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of
aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the
core of America’s ability to apply decisive military power when its pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is
to lose the key component of American military preeminence.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         224/448


                                                      F-22 CP 1NC 2/2
Contention 3 is the net benefit:

F-22 on the chopping block for Department of Defense spending.
The Aero-News Network, “Advanced Fighter Programs At Risk With Moseley, Wynne Departures”, 6/8/2008 http://www.aero-
news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=bda2c059-1aae-4bb6-9538-ead780f9270b

The forced resignation of US Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael T. Moseley and Secretary of the US Air Force Michael W.
Wynne last week may end production of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor program, and increase Pentagon spending on equipment
and technology intended for current wars. Their departure concluded a turbulent relationship with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on
differing strategies and a recent string of public embarrassments leading to their dismissals. According to a Reuters report this week,
analysts predict a shift away from programs meant to combat future threats from larger superpowers such as China and Russia and
focus spending on programs to supplement current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The views of Defense Secretary Gates and Air
Force leadership on spending priorities frequently differed and the recent departures offers an opportunity for Gates to promote his
strategy. As recently as March, Gates argued sending more Predator UAVs to battle zones in Iraq and Afghanistan as an "all-in"
approach though both Moseley and Wynne expressed concerns that current deployments were stretching its UAV crews thin as it was.
Gates has often singled out the cutting-edge Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor as a prime example of what he deemed misplaced military
priorities. "The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either
theater," Gates told a Senate committee in February. Under the leadership of Wynne and Moseley, 381 F-22s were sought from
Lockheed Martin -- more than twice as many as the 183 aircraft outlined in the Defense Department budget. Costing more than $132
million each, the radar-evading F-22 remains the sole advanced air superiority fighter in the USAF inventory.
Gates argues the F-22 -- the top US dogfighter -- is "principally for use against a near peer," Pentagon code words for China and
Russia. Potential threats he deems are years away. Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson, head of a command responsible for the development
and testing of new systems, said in February the Air Force would go on pushing for the F-22 Raptor, as it is optimized for knocking
out advanced air defenses of the larger long-term threats."Most people say in the future there will be a Chinese element to whatever
we do," he told reporters on February 13.In Carlson's remarks, "Gates correctly detected a lack of willingness among Air Force leaders
to follow his policies on F-22 fighters," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute to Reuters. Thompson is noted for his close
ties to the Pentagon and industry.

The Plan will tradeoff with other DOD programs
Kristine E. Blackwell, National Defense Fellow Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, “The Department of Defense:
Reducing Its Reliance on Fossil-Based Aviation Fuel- Issues for Congress”, June 15th 2007,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34062.pdf)

There are several ways in which DOD can reduce its use of fossil-based aviation fuel. Each has advantages and disadvantages and
no single option provides the perfect solution. Advanced technologies, such as synthetic fuels, offer potential alternatives but
further development and study are required before DOD can employ them on a large scale. DOD can also take measures to
decrease its use of fuel. Possible options include upgrading aircraft engines and modifying operational procedures. Many of these
measures, however, are costly and must compete for funding with other operational priorities.

Cross apply their hegemony impacts from the 1AC – this turns their case
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            225/448


                                               SOLVENCY – HEGEMONY

F-22s ARE KEY TO HEGEMONY
Frank Dudney, Editor in Chief of Air Force Magazine, 3-31-04, U.S. Newswire, p. L/N

Some critics say the Raptor should be de-emphasized in favor of future unmanned combat air vehicles, other fighters, or space- based
systems. That position is not favored by most defense professionals. In a July 22, 1999, pro-F/A-22 letter to Congress, seven former
Secretaries of Defense argued thus: "It is not enough to say that something better may be available in the future. Something better is
always available in the future. Serious threats to American air superiority may arise sooner, and the nation's security cannot tolerate a
loss of command of the air. Congress and the Administration must focus on this fundamental reality and fully fund the nation's only
truly stealthy air superiority fighter." One of the seven signatories was Donald Rumsfeld.


OUR AIR POWER IS THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE US MILITARY

Frank Record, Senior Fellow @ Georgia Tech Center for International Strategy, 5-6-96, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

Aerospace power has been a and will continue to be a the single most important component of U.S. military strength in the post-
industrial age. It is essential that the United States preserve as large a margin of superiority as possible in areospace technology. The
F-22 program embodies that imperative.

AIR POWER IS KEY TO OVERALL MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS

Maj. Gen. Bolton, Program Executive Officer for Fighter and Bomber Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, 2-22-00, Federal Document Clearing House, p. L/N

"Maintaining our air superiority and air dominance is No. 1 for us because it is the enabler for everything else we do," said Bolton. "It
allows us to prosecute our war plans and allows our Army and Navy colleagues to do what they need to do without worrying about
who is flying over them."


THE F-22'S SUPERIOR CAPABILITIES ARE KEY TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR
Al Gibbs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 3-30-04, Federal Document Clearing House, p. L/N

As indicated earlier, joint warfighting success in the Global War on Terrorism has been possible in part due to superior weapons
capabilities. New weapon systems are the tools of combat capability that enable our combatant commanders to respond quickly to
conflicts in support of national security objectives. The FY 2005 Total Force new mission military construction program consists of 45
projects, totaling more than $403 million. These projects support a number of weapons systems; two of special significance are the
F/A-22 Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster III. The F/A 22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air superiority and ground attack
fighter. F/A-22 flight training and maintenance training will be conducted at Tyndall AFB, Florida, and Sheppard AFB, Texas,
respectively. Our FY 2005 military construction request includes two F/A-22 projects at Tyndall AFB for $19 million, and one F/A-22
project at Sheppard AFB totaling $21 million.

THE F-22'S SUPERIOR CAPABILITIES ARE KEY TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

Al Gibbs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 3-30-04, Federal Document Clearing House, p. L/N

As indicated earlier, joint warfighting success in the Global War on Terrorism has been possible in part due to superior weapons
capabilities. New weapon systems are the tools of combat capability that enable our combatant commanders to respond quickly to
conflicts in support of national security objectives. The FY 2005 Total Force new mission military construction program consists of 45
projects, totaling more than $403 million. These projects support a number of weapons systems; two of special significance are the
F/A-22 Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster III. The F/A 22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air superiority and ground attack
fighter. F/A-22 flight training and maintenance training will be conducted at Tyndall AFB, Florida, and Sheppard AFB, Texas,
respectively. Our FY 2005 military construction request includes two F/A-22 projects at Tyndall AFB for $19 million, and one F/A-22
project at Sheppard AFB totaling $21 million.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               226/448


                                                SOLVENCY – HEGEMONY

THE F-22 IS KEY TO AIR POWER
General Ryan, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, 10-5-99, Omaha World Herald, p. L/N

That's why it was such a surprise when the House Appropriations subcommittee summarily removed production funding for the F-22.
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen has called the F-22 "the cornerstone of our nation's air power in the 21st century." In our
nation's conflicts, we will be asked to lead the fight into the heart of the enemy's air defenses, to ensure air superiority for our soldiers,
sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel. We will be asked to own the sky; we should not ask our aviators to do it with anything but
first-rate equipment. That's the F-22 Raptor.

NO PLANE IS NEARLY AS ESSENTIAL TO US AIRPOWER AS THE F-22
Major General Bolton, Program Executive Officer for Fighter and Bomber Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force, 2-22-00, Federal Document Clearing House, p. L/N

Those aircraft threats, coupled with increasingly more sophisticated and lethal surface-to-air missiles, have dramatically increased the
importance of the F-22's capabilities. The new fighter will bring together in a single package four capabilities no other fighter system
in the world possesses: the ability to fly supersonically without the use of afterburners, or what is called supercruise; stealth design;
greater maneuverability at supersonic speeds; and an integrated avionics package designed to present better and clearer information to
the pilot.


THE F-22 IS KEY TO U.S AIR POWER – THE ONE THING THAT MAINTAINS US MILITARY SUPREMACY
Washington Times, 8-8-99, p. L/N

Scanning the troops and materiel stretched across the Normandy beaches in 1944, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, according to Air Force
historian Richard Hallion, remarked, "If I didn't have air supremacy, I wouldn't be here." Lexington Institute analyst Loren Thompson,
who teaches in Georgetown's National Security Studies Program, recently observed, "Not a single U.S. soldier has been killed by
enemy aircraft since the Korean War." The reason? The United States has always maintained air superiority. Whether such air
dominance will continue well into the next century is now an open question. The House of Representatives recently diverted $1.8
billion in production funds from the Air Force's F-22 fighter program to other areas in the defense budget, some of which,
coincidentally, would benefit the districts of several representatives who led the charge against the F-22. The funds would have
financed the first six F-22 Raptor aircraft. Secretary of Defense William Cohen objected to the diversion, noting, "This decision, if
enacted, would for all practical purposes kill the F-22 program, the cornerstone of our nation's air power in the 21st century."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            227/448


                                               SOLVENCY – HEGEMONY

Future threats can only be deterred with the F-22
San Diego Union-Tribune, 7-29-01, p. L/N

The concern is that a future adversary will not make Saddam Hussein's mistake of allowing U.S. forces to mass on its doorstep.
Instead, it might use sea mines, diesel submarines, short-range missiles -- possibly with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads --
and terrorist or guerrilla attacks to keep U.S. forces out. Senior Air Force officers proclaim that long-range air power, primarily in the
form of the stealthy B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter jet, can overcome the obstacles, crush the enemy's will to fight and allow the other
services to mop up.


F-22s KEY TO AIRPOWER
Virginian-Pilot, 5-31-02, p. L/N

But in remarks to reporters at Langley Thursday, Air Force Brig. Gen. William J. Jabour stood in the shadow of a test Raptor and
defended the jet, lauding its "ability to penetrate enemy airspace unheard of before." The F-22 should be all but invisible to enemy
radars and operate at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, according to Air Force officials. Jabour, who is responsible for
the purchase of the F-22, said he remains convinced that the Air Force still needs at least 339 of the planes. <It Continues> And
whatever their air power, officials say, those countries will be able to buy advanced surface-to-air missiles that only a stealthy plane
like the F- 22 will be able to avoid. Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, agrees in part, saying the F-22
is now "the only candidate for next-generation air-to-air combat."

F-22’S ARE KEY TO DETERRENCE AND US AIR SUPREMACY
Jack Kelly, Staff Writer, 7-13-04, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. L/N

Loren Thompson, an analyst for the Lexington Institute, a think tank funded chiefly by defense contractors, said the results of the
Cope India exercise make it plain that the Air Force needs a new fighter. And Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., a former naval
aviator, is a big fan of the F-22 Raptor. "I had the opportunity to fly against the F-22," he said. "The only way I could catch it in my
F-15, even in full afterburner, was in a turn. The F-22 is an amazingly capable fighter that is going to insure America's air superiority
in the years ahead." Thompson figures that "without air superiority, we can't do anything else." But he conceded that "you can
probably do without hundreds of lower-end fighters." Krepinovich, on the other side of the argument, made a concession, as well. He
acknowledged that the Air Force probably should develop a small, "silver bullet" force of F-22s. "It has an intimidation effect," he
said. "It tells the rest of the word: don't even bother challenging the U.S. in air superiority."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          228/448


                                              SOLVENCY – TERRORISM

AIR POWER IS KEY TO U.S. MILITARY DOMINANCE AND ENDING TERRORISM

Chris Lundy, Research Associate at the Council of Foreign Relations, 1-13-02, Los Angeles Times, p. L/N

U.S. air power is flying high for its role in the war against terrorism. And it should be. The combat performance of U.S. aircraft was
largely responsible for our quick and decisive victory in Afghanistan. It can even be said that air power, as an instrument of military
power, has turned a corner, at long last realizing the dreams of some strategic thinkers who regarded air war as a civilizing force
because it could shorten conflicts. Yet, all this success shouldn't rush to the heads of policymakers, who may be tempted to use air
power to pursue ambitious--and risky--goals abroad. Some analysts, policymakers and politicians already believe that air power can
fight and win our conflicts. In the Dec. 3 issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria wrote that many in the Pentagon remain trapped in land-
power nostalgia. He urged them to face the facts that bombing works. Similarly, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has complained that we
"underestimate the impact that air power can have." Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration,
notes there is "a tendency among our political leaders to view air power as a cheap and easy military solution to all our foreign policy
problems."

THE F-22'S SUPERIOR CAPABILITIES ARE KEY TO WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

Al Gibbs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, 3-30-04, Federal Document Clearing House, p. L/N

As indicated earlier, joint warfighting success in the Global War on Terrorism has been possible in part due to superior weapons
capabilities. New weapon systems are the tools of combat capability that enable our combatant commanders to respond quickly to
conflicts in support of national security objectives. The FY 2005 Total Force new mission military construction program consists of 45
projects, totaling more than $403 million. These projects support a number of weapons systems; two of special significance are the
F/A-22 Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster III. The F/A 22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air superiority and ground attack
fighter. F/A-22 flight training and maintenance training will be conducted at Tyndall AFB, Florida, and Sheppard AFB, Texas,
respectively. Our FY 2005 military construction request includes two F/A-22 projects at Tyndall AFB for $19 million, and one F/A-22
project at Sheppard AFB totaling $21 million.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            229/448


                                                   2NC OVERVIEW – DA

The Disad Outweighs and turns the case:

A) Magnitude—A tradeoff with F-22 would destroy US hegemony—the F-22 is a key deterrent in preventing major wars and
escalation. Without it, other countries would be more prone to attack the US—the US would get entangled in numerous wars
and lose military supremacy—that’s Donelly

B) Timeframe—the tradeoff would have immediate effects—F-22s are the lynchpin of US deterrence

John Peters, Acting Secretary of the Air Force, 7-28-99, Palm Beach Post, p. L/N

Killing the F-22 is simply not acceptable. It is wrong for national security. It is bad economics. And it would
put American service members at unnecessary and unacceptable risk. Operation Allied Force in the skies over
Kosovo illustrated that air superiority is the foundation for victory on land, at sea and in the air. As we rapidly
deploy decisive combat forces from the United States to the scene of hostilities, fighter jets will be the first to
arrive. They will help us deter an adversary from attacking and, if deterrence fails, to fight on the ground and in
the air, and win. The F-22 would guarantee success in these vital missions for decades to come. Some critics of the
F-22 contend that our country's relatively easy victories in the past 10 years prove that we don't need a new fighter. They insist that
our air power is already far superior to that of any potential enemy. Today, though, at least six other aircraft - the Russian
MiG-29, SU-27 and SU-35, the French Mirage 2000 and Rafael and the European Consortium's Eurofighter -
threaten to surpass the aging F-15, our current top-of-the-line air-to-air fighter. These aircraft are marketed
aggressively around the world to our allies and potential adversaries. Without the F-22, the United States runs
the risk of allowing our air superiority to atrophy to the point that an adversary could inflict great harm on our
previously superior Air Force. Already, many nations, among them Iran, Iraq and North Korea, are constructing
sophisticated air defenses built around surface-to-air missile systems such as the Russian SA-10, SA-12 and
SA-20. All these missile systems are available on the market today. Our current aircraft, such as the F-15 and F-
16, lack the F-22's stealth and supercruise abilities and will be unable to evade or destroy these air defenses
without risking heavy losses.

And, air superiority is key to military superiority

Gen. Ryan, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, 10-5-99, Omaha World Herald, p. L/N

NATO and the   United States completed a victorious air campaign in Yugoslavia. As in Desert Storm, almost a
decade earlier, the conditions for victory were set because we owned the sky: We had air superiority. Air
superiority is not just control of an enemy's aircraft; it is domination of all of an enemy's air capabilities -
command and control, communications, radar, surface-to-air missiles, airfields, munitions and infrastructure.
Air superiority is the state of military air affairs that provides freedom from attack and freedom to attack, not
just for air forces, but for land and naval forces as well. In Desert Storm, the conditions were set by air superiority for land
forces to succeed in fewer than 100 hours. In Kosovo, conditions were set for victory without having to use land forces in battle. Not
since early World War II have American fighting forces been subjected to intense aerial attack. In the early 1970s, we began
producing the F-15 aircraft to ensure air superiority for all our forces. That was more than a quarter of a century ago, and the F-15 is
wearing out - both physically and technologically.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                  230/448


                       *** RATIFY KYOTO CP ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        231/448

                                                  RATIFY KYOTO 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

Because of America’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, our soft power is suffering. Leadership on climate change policies,
starting with the Protocol, is crucial to restoring soft power.
Harvard Political Review 4/22/08 (Jake Auchincloss, Restoring American Soft Power, accessed:
6/30/08, http://hprsite.squarespace.com/restoring-american-soft-042008/, DJ)
Along with global health, climate change stands as a key issue on which America can establish leadership. The European Union has
already begun to innovate with regards to carbon constraint, and the two other leading actors in this crisis, China and India, may well
follow if the United States assumes leadership of the clean-energy transformation. The process will certainly be painful at first,
whether it involves gasoline-tax hikes, investment in nuclear energy, or other redemptive actions. But progress on this front could do
more to rehabilitate America’s moral leadership than any other, and would begin to undo the significant damage caused by America’s
refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. With the dollar weakening and large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, America cannot
rely only on its hard and stiff power. This means that soft power will be imperative for America to accomplish its foreign policy
objectives and maintain its global leadership. Though progress will be difficult, the US has long been admired for its achievement of
grand aims by pragmatic measures. Building upon that record will go a long way towards solidifying America’s position as the leader
of the free world. A similar boost to American soft power will come through leadership on issues of global significance, such as global
health and climate change. Ensuring that the world’s impoverished do not die from preventable diseases not only improves America’s
image amongst those poor in the short-term, as it has in Africa following a tripling of development funding in recent years, said Nye,
but it also promotes the stability necessary for American values to take root and flourish. Towards this end, the next president will
need to convince other G-8 leaders of the wisdom of empowering the UN’s World Health Organization. In tandem, he or she will have
to streamline the federal government’s development initiatives and increase funding to agencies like the National Institutes of Health,
which can help combat infectious diseases.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                        232/448


                       *** FUND NASA COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            233/448

                                                            NASA 1NC

CP Text: Boost funding to sufficiently execute all of NASA’s programs

NASA is being significantly cut
Gaglioti 06
         [Frank, May 20th, Cuts to NASA budget gut space research, Cuts to NASA budget gut space research]

In a far-reaching reorientation of its programs, the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) budget has effectively
capped science spending for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011. Programs designed to investigate more fundamental scientific
questions about the character of the solar system and the universe are being sacrificed to enable NASA to carry out President George
Bush’s grandiose scheme to establish a permanent settlement on the moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. NASA’s
announcement in February was part of Bush’s budget cuts to federal science spending by 1 percent to $59.8 billion. The changes to
NASA’s program are mirrored in the overall science budget, which is focussed more narrowly on projects with commercial payoffs or
to strengthen the US military. Bush’s “American Competitive Initiative,” which is aimed at bolstering US corporate interests at the
expense of their rivals, will consume $5.9 billion. Presidential science adviser John Marburger bluntly declared: “The point is, we’re
prioritising.”

NASA is key to space exploration
Worden 06-- director of NASA Ames Research Center
       [Pete, October 18th, NASA Ames Research Center has vital role in future space exploration,
       http://venturebeat.com/2006/10/18/nasa-ames-research-center-has-vital-role-in-future-space-exploration/]

The future is now, as NASA begins its quest to fulfill the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. With a return to the moon and
later travel to Mars, NASA Ames Research Center, located in the heart of California’s Silicon Valley, is playing a key role. NASA is
developing the next generation vehicle to replace the space shuttle, which will retire in 2010. The Orion crew exploration vehicle will
be NASA’s primary vehicle for future human space exploration. Orion will carry astronauts to the International Space Station by
2014, with a goal of landing astronauts on the moon no later than 2020. Orion will be a key element of extending a sustained human
presence beyond low-Earth orbit to advance U.S. commerce, science and national leadership. As NASA’s lead field center for thermal
protection systems, Ames will use its thermal (arc jet), structural and environmental facilities to conduct critical testing and evaluation
of a new heat shield for the Orion crew exploration vehicle. The heat shield will protect the spacecraft and crew during atmospheric
re-entry, following missions to the moon or the International Space Station. This is a significant role for Ames and one that we’re
particularly proud of. In addition, Ames has the lead role in developing the information technology tools, including the integrated
systems health monitoring system, necessary for Orion. Ames also will play a key role in developing software for human-machine
interaction, mission control, project planning, management and documentation systems for future exploration. In addition to hardware
and software development, NASA is replicating business practices of other high technology organizations. For example, to help spur
some of the necessary technology development for future space exploration, NASA launched a capital venture program in October
2006 to support innovative, dual-use technologies to help us achieve our ambitious mission affordably, and better position these
technologies for commercial use. Our partner in this venture is Red Planet Capital Inc., a non-profit organization based in San Mateo.
Red Planet Capital will use venture capital and a NASA investment of approximately $75 million over five years to establish a
strategic venture capital fund for NASA. Working with innovators and investors from the private sector, Red Planet Capital will
develop technologies needed for future space exploration. We anticipate this will usher in a new era of collaboration for NASA with
dynamic companies. Red Planet Capital will operate from our NASA Research Park, located here at NASA Ames. NASA Research
Park (NRP) is rapidly becoming a world-class, shared use, R&D and education campus for government, academia, non-profits and
industry supporting NASA’s mission. We expect these partnerships to continue. Another Silicon Valley company we are partnering
with is Google, our nearby neighbor, with whom we signed an agreement last September to collaborate on a number of technology-
focused research-and-development activities. This new era of exploration will accelerate advances in robotics, autonomous and fault-
tolerant systems, human-machine interfaces, material, life support systems and novel applications of micro- and nano- devices. We’re
optimistic this will open up the entire sphere of the inner solar system to commerce and result in the development of impressive new
technologies and capabilities that will benefit people on Earth, such as addressing our energy and global warming crises. One of the
technology development areas that I would like to see Ames involved in over the next few years is the development of small satellites
for missions costing less than $200 million. I think that’s something that we can do well, and we’ve established a small satellite office
to manage that endeavor. In the next few months, we will be announcing the formation of partnerships with various Silicon Valley
companies to work with us to develop these small satellites for future low-cost space missions. With a modest investment of our
national resources, the Vision for Space Exploration will fuel the growth of human creativity, innovation and technology development
contributing to U.S. leadership as a space-faring nation, scientific advances, and economic competitiveness: This is our destiny.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          234/448

                                    INHERENCY EXTENSIONS – FUNDING

NASA budget being cut from multiple programs
Tobin 3/24/08— Senior Producer, CNN Science & Technology
          [Kate, Budget woes at NASA to impact Mars Rovers, Science tech blog, CNN,
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/24/budget-woes-at-nasa-to-impact-mars-rovers/]

NASA officials have directed the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) program to cut $4 million dollars from its $approximately 20
million dollar budget this year, and principal investigator Steve Squyres tells CNN that will likely mean science operations will have
to be suspended for Spirit. The rover would be put in hibernation mode, and if all goes well it could be reactivated in the future in the
event funding is restored. NASA Headquarters spokesman Dwayne Brown confirmed the budget directive has been issued. He said the
reason behind the cut is to offset cost overruns with the Mars Science Laboratory, a follow-on rover set to launch next year. NASA
spent $800 million to build and launch Spirit and its twin, Opportunity, to Mars. They landed about 3 weeks apart in January 2004, on
opposite sides of the planet from each other. Both were designed for 90 day missions, but are still operating more than four years later.
Designed to be robotic geologists, the two rovers have examined Martian rocks and soil, looking for tell-tell signs of water.
Opportunity hit “pay dirt” when it found evidence that salty sea once stood on in the area that is now called Meridiani Planum. Spirit
has roamed miles from its landing site and climbed high into the “Columbia” hills inside an area called the Gusev Crater. Squyres says
the money will mean job cuts in the staff of about 300 scientists that operate the rovers and analyze the science findings. Those staff
reductions likely will mean that they have to suspend science operations for one of the rovers, and Spirit is the likely candidate
because it is currently riding out the Martian winter in a parked position. Squyres says he and his team will put together and issue a
plan to NASA officials before they do anything, so it is unclear exactly unclear when Spirit’s science operations will be shut down.
But he says he has been told to expect a $8 million budget cut in fiscal year 2009 funding.

NASA getting cut now
The Planetary Society 1/31/07
        [Congressional Appropriators Cut NASA Funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and Science All Cut,
        http://rrgtm.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html]

The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for NASA was cut
by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February. The $16.2 billion
budgeted for NASA for 2007 is the same as the amount approved for 2006. To become law, the Appropriations Committee’s proposal
still must be approved by the full House and Senate. The Planetary Society strongly opposed the Administration’s request for fiscal
year 2007 because it had slashed science programs in order to increase funding for the shuttle, the space station, the new Ares and
Orion launch vehicles, and lunar programs. The House Appropriations plan accepts the funding cuts to all of these areas, and adds to
them even more cuts to space science and to the NASA Exploration programs. It’s a double whammy,” said Louis Friedman,
Executive Director of The Planetary Society. “First the science underpinnings to the NASA exploration architecture were removed;
now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.” The budget includes cuts of $576 million from the Moon-to-Mars program,
$94million from shuttle and space station, and $78 million from NASA's Science programs. Spending for Aeronautics was increased
above the NASA’s request by $163 million, and another $40 million was added to miscellaneous programs. It is too soon to tell how
NASA will deal with the cuts if they are passed by the full Congress. But it does seem that the plans to get humans back to the Moon
and on to Mars will at the very least be delayed -- if not outright lost. It also seems that Congress will not restore the deep cuts
previously made to space science research and data analysis, astrobiology, or the Earth observations program which, the National
Research Council recently warned, could damage our ability to study our own planet. Last year the Congress had indicated they would
restore some of the science funding, but then they failed to pass any budget at all. The entire funding decision has now been put into a
“Continuing Resolution” which caps funds for federal agencies at the 2006 levels. The new budget must be passed by February 15,
when the interim budget resolution funding the federal government runs out. It is expected that the Senate will pass the Joint
Resolution in the first full week of February -- ironically, the same week the Administration proposes a fiscal year 2008 budget.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          235/448

                    LINK – LACK OF FUNDING UNDERMINES EXPLORATION

The lack of funding empirically undermines space exploration
IFPTE 06— International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
        [February 6th, NASA Budget Betrays Vision for Space Exploration, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18941]

Less than forty days ago the President signed into law the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which passed both the House and Senate
without dissent, a stunning endorsement of NASA's missions in Aeronautics, Science, and Space Explorations and of the President's
Vision for Space Exploration. This law calls for a reinvigorated budgetary commitment to NASA, commensurate with the awesome
new tasks and responsibilities borne by the Agency and its employees. Today, the President's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2007
represents a disappointing 180-degree turn. "The Administration has ignored the voice of Congress demanding that NASA be given
adequate financial resources to accomplish all of its mandated missions without compromising science or safety", said Gregory
Junemann, President of the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, (IFPTE), NASA's largest union. "The
overall budget is more than 5% lower than that requested by Congress at a time when the Administrator has complained that previous
'under costing' has left the shuttle operations budget several billions in the hole. The solution cannot be another round of 'under-
costing' to once again paper over the problem. "The budget stubbornly re-embarks on last year's path of massive cuts to NASA's
Aeronautics programs, a course of action that was repeatedly rejected by Congress during both the Appropriations and Authorization
process. The proposed budget is 25% lower than that in the Authorization bill and, once again, ignores NASA key role in maintaining
America's leadership in Aeronautics R&D as well as its economic competitiveness. At a time when Europe is investing heavily in this
area in an overt attempt to dethrone us, the United States Government cannot abdicate its responsibilities and sit on the sidelines. "The
budget cuts Science by more than 10% from last year's presidential projection as well as from the authorization numbers. It also cuts
Exploration Systems and Space Operations by about 5% from the authorization numbers. Yet the administration simultaneously
promises to complete the International Space Station by 2010 and to develop a new spacecraft system two years earlier than called for
in the President's Vision. This better, cheaper, faster fantasy on steroids has a bad long-term prognosis. "On January 13 th, I urged the
President to respond favorably to his chosen Administrator's call for budgetary relief. While the President is of course free to choose a
different course of action, NASA is not free to reinvent arithmetic and must therefore accept the obvious consequences of today's
decision. NASA simply cannot move forward with both a full slate of Shuttle flights to complete ISS and also deliver a safer new set
of space vehicles systems by 2012 with a low-ball budget proposal. The stop-gap approach of devouring everything else at the
Agency, while holding out for some future financial miracle, is irresponsible. This course of action is destroying NASA's key
infrastructure and capabilities, and the hundreds of millions recouped cannot make up the multi-billion dollar Shuttle shortfall."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                            236/448

                       *** MINE THE MOON COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                     237/448

                                                             MINE THE MOON 1NC

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

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
European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020. Mining the moon for helium-3
has been discussed widely 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         238/448

                                     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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        239/448

                                            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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                            240/448


                       *** PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              241/448

                                                  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
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."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      242/448


                               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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          243/448


                                        SOLVENCY – CLIMATE CHANGE

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."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             244/448


                                                      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.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      245/448


                                 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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                   246/448


                       *** COLUMBIAN FREE TRADE COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                     247/448

                                       COLUMBIAN FREE TRADE 1NC

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

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                              Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                   248/448


                                                                    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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                       249/448


                            SOLVENCY – CHECKS CHAVEZ / HEGEMONY

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        250/448


                                             SOLVENCY – HEGEMONY

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/egx2fns4jepdyl3n35curfmyxhqlcf7ejtf
rkqqyjmdqjye7y25figg5qkiwbrdjo3xzy7iriclxws7zwt643p2vrga/CitystatehavebigstakeinColombiaFTA.pdf+%22The+commercial+ap
peal%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?
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         251/448


                                             SOLVENCY – FREE TRADE

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                          252/448


                                                                        SOLVENCY – ENVIRONMENT

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 investments in environmental infrastructure; and making it easier for environmental scientists, engineers
and technicians to provide services to the people of Central America.

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."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                         253/448


                                                          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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         254/448


                                       SOLVENCY – 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/egx2fns4jepdyl3n35curfmyxhqlcf7ejtf
rkqqyjmdqjye7y25figg5qkiwbrdjo3xzy7iriclxws7zwt643p2vrga/CitystatehavebigstakeinColombiaFTA.pdf+%22The+commercial+ap
peal%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.


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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         255/448


                                            SOLVENCY – DEMOCRACY

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.

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.

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.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             256/448


                                             NET BENEFIT – AGENDA DA

A. The Columbia FTA has bipartisan support now – but Bush needs to keep using his political capital to push for it
Wall Street Journal, 3/10/08, “The Chavez Democrats”
Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in
America. And Democrats don’t want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass
anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the
Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or
later the White House will have to force the issue.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own
Presidential qualities, they’d be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would
spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

B. *Insert Political Capitol Link*

C. Passage is key to stop terrorism
Erika Andersen, staff writer for human events, 7-4-08 (“Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Trouble”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27350)

Economics aside, accepting the CFTA would amp up American national security interests. Colombia has successfully battled the
domestic terrorist group FARC by upholding democracy and maintaining free markets under President Alvaro Uribe, who enjoys an
80% approval rating. Colombia is surrounded by dangerous countries like Venezuela, who would be more than happy to assist them
in coming up against the US should we prove unreliable.
“I think the debate about Colombia is an important litmus test in many ways for whether America is going to remain committed to the
policies of openness, the basic idea that we are better as a society because we are open to foreign trade and investment,” Padilla said.

D. Extinction
Alexander 03(Yonah, Director of Inter-University Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, August 28, 2003. http://www.cross-
x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983842&highlight=Alexander )

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international
community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of
civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant
rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,
Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's
commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous
acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time
of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why
are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised
by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to
terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality,
weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their
historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional
threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of
Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional
and global security concerns.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        257/448


                                        UNIQUENESS EXT – PASS NOW

Columbia FTA is passing now – the resolved hostage situation helps
Reuters, 7/3/08
The rescue raised White House hopes that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi might reconsider her opposition to the
U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement and schedule a vote soon on the pact.
"One of the concerns that she said she's had has been security in Colombia," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We
maintain that President (Alvaro) Uribe, since elected -- since he was elected -- has done a tremendous job of improving security
there in Colombia."

The Columbia FTA will pass now because of the hostage situation
The Hill, 7/4/08, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/colombia-rescues-prisoners-but-maybe-not-trade-deal-2008-07-04.html

An official from Colombia’s government said the rescue could bolster efforts on the trade deal, but drew a more direct
link to Colombia’s efforts to win funding from Congress for Plan Colombia, the anti-drug effort funded by the U.S. government.

Colombia FTA will pass now because Bush is pushing
James R. Jones, Co-chair of Global Strategies LLC, 1/25/08,
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:KsHSczKUDEEJ:www.lyd.com/LYD/Controls/Neochannels/Neo_CH3988/deploy/LAA08012
5.pdf+colombia+free+trade+%22political+capital%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=61&gl=us&lr=lang_hr%7Clang_en

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Medellin, Colombia, Thursday with a group of ten US legislators—all
Democrats—in an effort to build support for the Bush administration's contentious free trade pact and security policies. The goal of
the trip is to demonstrate how important trade is to Colombia's econo- my, the State Department said in a press briefing this week.
Rice and the legislators are scheduled to meet today with trade unionists, business leaders, local elected officials, and demobilized
combatants. They are also scheduled to meet with Colombia's attorney general and President Alvaro Uribe. The US lawmak- ers
include Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), who chairs the House Western Hemisphere subcommittee. The Bush administration has put a lot of
political capital into the pending free trade deal with Colombia in hopes its passage will help revive its sag- ging image in Latin
America. OnThursday, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab said she was confident Bush can win approval of the free trade
agreement with Colombia if House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi allows Democrats to "vote freely" on the deal,
according to Reuters. Many Democrats cite Colombia's exceptionally bloody history of killing union organizers as one reason for
blocking the deal. "If you want to help Colombia, there's a lot better ways than sending Sec. Rice," Jeff Vogt, global economic policy
specialist for the AFL-CIO, told the Associated Press.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          258/448


                           INTERNAL LINK EXT – POLITICAL CAPITOL KEY

Bush has to invest political capital in order to push Latin American initiatives
Boston Globe, 2/25/07, “Colombia political scandal imperiling US ties”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/25/colombia_political_scandal_imperiling_us_ties/

Bush is not expected to offer significant new aid or trade in his March 8-14 tour, his nemesis Hugo Chávez of oil-rich Venezuela is
traversing the continent with an open checkbook.
"Who have we staked all of our political capital on in Latin America? Uribe," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International
Policy, a think tank in Washington. "If this scandal engulfs him or his armed forces, it will be a devastating blow to the whole design
of US policy."

Bush’s political capital is key to the Colombian free trade agreement
Michael Shifter, vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue, a forum of Western Hemisphere leaders, January 2001, “A
Global Affairs Commentary Latin American Policy and the Bush Administration”
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:z3NidLfiF5UJ:www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0101latamer.pdf+colombia+free+trade+%22political+cap
ital%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=51&gl=us&lr=lang_hr%7Clang_en

Indeed, for most of the Latin American governments, the most positive signal the Bush administra- tion could send at the outset is
that it attaches high priority to securing “fast track authority.” (This would enable Bush to negotiate trade agreements without
amendments from Congress.) More than anything else, Latin American countries—most struggling with increasingly acute
poverty—want and expect greater access to U.S. markets and capital. It remains to be seen, however, how quickly Bush will move
on the trade front, how much political capital he will be prepared to spend, and to what extent he will be willing to incorporate
labor and environmental standards into any agreement. Robert Zoellick, Bush’s U.S. Trade Representative, is widely regarded as a
staunch free trade advocate and will be severely tested politically as he attempts to get Democratic support for trade-related
measures.

Political capital is key to pass the Colombia FTA
National Journal, 7/26/08, “Trading Gibes” http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20080726_8886.php
McCain has outspokenly supported both the Colombia and South Korea free-trade agreements, acknowledging Bogota's efforts in
the drug war and Seoul's support in the Iraq war. A McCain administration would be expected to redouble Bush's efforts to win
approval of both deals on Capitol Hill.
Obama has opposed both trade agreements. If the Democrats win the White House, business lobbyists hope (although it is
probably a vain hope) that the current Congress will approve the Colombia agreement in a December lame-duck session to take
this thorny issue off Obama's legislative agenda. Such a move would not sit well with organized labor. Resolving the South Korea
impasse could prove even more difficult, given Korean farmers' violent opposition to the deal. A more likely scenario is for a
President Obama to try to make both accords his own by "fixing" them--taking some time to at least cosmetically improve labor
rights in Colombia and to gain more market access for U.S. automakers in Korea--before spending political capital to get
congressional approval.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                            259/448


                       *** ANWR DRILLING COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                        260/448

                                                       ANWR CP 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Contention 1: Competition – The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

Oil shocks coming soon and will devastate the economy – ANWR key to solve them
Douglas B. Reynolds is assistant professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and specializes in oil, gas, and energy economics,
World and I, December 1, 2001

What connection could there be between pre-Columbian Mayan civilization and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)? It has
to do with resources. The Mayan disaster was the result of a soil-depletion resource shortage, and our modern industrialized society
also depends on a very important resource: oil. If we have an oil shortage, we could collapse economically, as the Maya did. This is
because human economic existence depends on resources; thus, when the resource base declines, so do economies and civilizations.
Therefore, if and when the modern world reaches a point of oil scarcity, it will certainly go into recession. That will change our
outlook. A recession could very well catapult the general public into hysteria and force Congress to open up ANWR. Furthermore, if
the public were desperate enough, ANWR could be opened too quickly, allowing it to be exploited without safeguards for
environmental preservation. I am very conflicted about opening ANWR. The evidence is very clear, however, that oil prices will soon
be rising quickly. Therefore, I believe the environmental community should fight to preserve ANWR but that its goals would be better
served by opening ANWR now, with a go-slow approach, rather than waiting for the inevitable shotgun style of mismanagement.
THE OIL TRANSITION An oil shock is coming soon. You can tell because the United States constantly sends people to the Middle
East to ask Saudi Arabia to keep oil production high in order to avoid a recession. Right now, with stock prices falling, the world's
economies (especially the United States and Japan) are close to or already in a recession. This motivates politicians to beg OPEC for
lower oil prices and increased supplies. The question remains, if OPEC has such immense power over our economies now, then how
much more power will it have in the future? Indeed, why does it have any power at all? Where is this new world of fuel-cell cars and
nuclear fusion that everyone keeps talking about? It does not look anywhere near being a reality. If anything, the push to keep OPEC
prices low will reduce incentives to create such a world, and we will continue to demand more oil. Soon Saudi Arabia will be unable
to increase production, and an oil shortfall will ensue. Then there will be an oil-price shock. Recall what happened in 1973.
Everyone was going about his business, with no worry about oil at all, until oil prices increased dramatically after the Arab-Israeli
Yom Kippur War. Within the year, they had quadrupled. In 1979 a second oil shock hit, just when we thought our problems were
behind us. Both times no one suspected a thing, and both times the economy went into deep recession. This will surely happen again.
Right now, the oil market is precariously linked to Middle Eastern suppliers. The world gets an incredible 25 percent of its oil from
the Middle East, which holds 66 percent of total world proven reserves. That means by using less Middle Eastern oil now, we will
sooner or later use more in the future. Although the world is ever-more dependent on the region's oil, its capacity for production may
be limited due to OPEC market mechanisms. Soon, world oil consumption will reach a supply limit and cause a price shock. A
Middle Eastern war could disrupt supplies and cause the same problem. Would ANWR oil stop such a shock? No. But it might slow
the price rise and give the economy a little breathing room. In addition, during an economic downturn ANWR could give a $ 200
billion boost to economic activity here in the United States. Opening the reserve could also provide thousands of high-paying jobs.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         261/448


                                               SOLVENCY – ECOMONY

Economic collapse inevitable absent ANWR, current domestic production just isn’t enough
Adams, 11-9-2004
(Alan, Served 20 years in the Alaska Legislature, http://www.anwr.org/archives/not_opening_anwr_is_irresponsible.php, 11-9-04)

We Alaskans look hopefully to promises of increased heavy oil production from the West Sak field, or expected new oil from the
National Petroleum Reserve, or the riches forecast from the gas pipeline. But let¹s be honest. The only thing that will save Alaska from
the inevitability of an income tax will be a continued increase in the price of world oil. Such an increase would be a disaster for the
nation¹s economy and Alaska would accordingly suffer despite its large oil income. The reality is that the new oil production from the
North slope will be modest in volume and serve only to slow the state¹s production decline, not reverse it. The gas pipeline will supply
jobs and income to Alaska, but probably not for 10 years. The only action that will have an immediate positive impact would be the
opening of the ANWR coastal plain. Twenty-one months after the ANWR bill is signed into law the first lease sale will be held.
According to the federal government, leasing will generate an estimated $3.2 billion in cash bonus bids, of which half immediately is
paid to Alaska.Where else can we expect a windfall of $1.6 billion in the next two years? Where else can we look forward to billions
of barrels of new oil production to benefit our children, to say nothing of the nation?

ANWR will produce thousands of jobs, revenue and disposable income to boost the economy.
ARCTIC POWER, 04
(http://www.anwr.org/case.htm)

The U.S. economy benefits from domestic production when new construction, service, manufacturing, and engineering jobs are
created. These jobs occur in all 50 states. A national impact study by Wharton Econometrics estimates total employment at full
production in ANWR to be 735,000 jobs. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals,
royalties and taxes.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            262/448


                                         SOLVENCY – OIL DEPENDENCE

ANWR is necessary to solve dependence on Oil – it’s the only way to transition to a more sustainable lifestyle
Juneau Empire, “ANWR a good first step toward fiscal solution,” 11-17-2004
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/111704/opi_20041117015.shtml

It's estimated that ANWR harbors somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 billion barrels of oil. When compared to the enormous fields
of the Middle East and Russia, this is not a huge amount on a global scale. However, the fact is that the coastal plain is likely to be the
largest remaining field in the United States - a fact that cannot be forgotten as we try to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Estimates say opening ANWR would likely cause the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by around 5 percent.
Drilling opponents are likely to claim that this is a drop in the bucket, but a five percent reduction on foreign oil would represent a
huge step in the right direction nonetheless, and would certainly ease - at least somewhat - how beholden we are to the whims of
OPEC ministers and uncertain geopolitics. Opening ANWR is necessary to enable the trans-Alaska pipeline to continue operating
into the next century. With the addition of 800,000 or more barrels per day of ANWR oil, the pipeline could remain viable for
decades to come. Without ANWR, it has been estimated the pipeline will have to cease operations by as early as 2025. This is a
danger that cannot be overestimated. If the pipeline stops flowing, Alaska dies - period. That the current climate is favorable to
drilling is a good sign for Alaskans. However, the debate over drilling again highlights our dependence in Alaska on oil money to fill
the state's coffers. While we look toward a future that appears bright with the prospect of new oil and gas developments, we should
also continue to seek out ways to diversify our economy and reduce the amount of oil money that pays for state services. Even with
ANWR open for development, Alaska's oil will some day run out. Drilling can help bridge the gap between that day and today,
but that doesn't change the fact that long-term fiscal planning and economic diversity still hold the key to Alaska's future.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              263/448


                                                   SOLVENCY – WATER

1/ Arctic drillings is key to harvesting methane hydrates.
Inside F.E.R.C.'s Gas Market Report, December 20, 2002

The study, which was based partly on an American Gas Foundation study released earlier this year and a forthcoming study by the
Dept. of Energy on nontraditional gas resources, said that in 20 years only 80% of domestic gas demand would be supplied by
traditional reserves. That compares with 99% today. Liquefied natural gas, untapped Alaskan gas and methane hydrates must be
advanced by the government and the industry in order for future demand growth to be met, Wilkinson said. By 2020, gas flowing from
Alaska could total 1.7 to 2.1 Tcf/year and LNG could provide between 4.7 and 7 Tcf/year, according to the AGA study. Because the
price of traditional gas has increased from the $ 2 range to $ 4/Mcf, LNG is more competitive with traditional gas. The cost of tankers
and LNG facilities has also come down 20% since 1980, AGA said. ''Nontraditional sources may account for a lion's share of growth
after 2010,'' according to Wilkinson. AGA considers an Alaska gas pipeline to be a ''nontraditional'' energy source because it would
not flow gas to the Lower-48 until at least 2010. And that date assumes all financial and regulatory matters can be resolved and
construction can begin in the near future.

2/ Methane hydrates solve water shortages.
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) November 7, 2002 Thursday, Final / All

Hydrates have other benefits as well, according to Rath. They hold the potential for solving many of today's fuel, water, ecological,
and transportation problems. Swamp gas Methane hydrates are a byproduct of decay of biological matter in water.
"One of the byproducts of that interaction is methane," explained Rath. "In a marsh, it bubbles off. In deeper water, where the pressure
is high and temperature is low - near the freezing point - it forms solids." Under the ocean, the methane hydrates collect and act as a
cement that holds the seabed together. In some areas, however, thermal inversions occur where temperature increases with greater
depth, and the higher temperature forces the hydrates to melt and give up their methane. The result is a pocket or cavern full of
methane below the seabed. These caves can be mapped with seismic hydro-acoustics, which means using a kind of sonar to detect
changes in the composition of the seabed. The Navy discovered the hydrate deposits during the mapping of the seabed to aid
underwater navigation. The deposits have proven huge. Rath estimates that the total worldwide deposits of methane hydrates amount
to the equivalent of 10,000 gigatons (trillion tons) of fuel, roughly double the total of all fossil fuel reserves - that includes petroleum,
natural gas and coal. The hydrates are not only more abundant than fossil fuels, they also burn more cleanly. "This is the highest
energy-density gas," said Rath. "It's also the cleanest burning. It's 30 times cleaner than burning petroleum and 65 times cleaner than
coal." Methane hydrates also hold the potential of relieving future water shortages as well as energy shortages. Extract the methane
from the hydrates, and what's left is water that can be purified.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           264/448


                             AT: DRILLING IN ANWR KILLS BIODIVERSITY

Turn: ANWR drilling prevents oil drilling near the equator, which would hurt biodiversity much more than arctic drilling
Douglas B. Reynolds is assistant professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and specializes in oil, gas, and energy economics,
World and I, December 1, 2001

ANWR oil will reduce world oil prices slightly. More than that, by not opening up ANWR, we will simply push oil production into
other counties such as Nigeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela, where environmental safeguards are considered less important. In other
words, we can save environmentally sensitive regions of the world by tapping into the reserve. We would not ruin ANWR in the
least, but we would save other oil regions from exploitation. Since the development will be done to the highest environmental-safety
standards, it will delay or stop other areas from being exploited with lower standards. Also remember that most of the world's
biodiversity occurs closer to the equator than the poles. By pushing oil development onto other regions, such as Africa and Indonesia,
we probably threaten biodiversity. Opening ANWR can save more species than it will harm. Indeed, since the oil pipeline did not
hurt the caribou, further development probably will not either.

Oil shocks also mean ANWR drilling is inevitable, which takes out all their impacts – however, drilling now allows slow drilling,
which saves the environment
Douglas B. Reynolds is assistant professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and specializes in oil, gas, and energy economics,
World and I, December 1, 2001
A recession could very well catapult the general public into hysteria and force Congress to open up ANWR. Furthermore, if the
public were desperate enough, ANWR could be opened too quickly, allowing it to be exploited without safeguards for environmental
preservation. I am very conflicted about opening ANWR. The evidence is very clear, however, that oil prices will soon be rising
quickly. Therefore, I believe the environmental community should fight to preserve ANWR but that its goals would be better served
by opening ANWR now, with a go-slow approach, rather than waiting for the inevitable shotgun style of mismanagement.
<continued…>
We can learn three things from the pipeline experience. One, no matter how much opposition there is to ANWR, it will subside as
soon as the next oil shock and recession occur. Two, with TAPS, the anticipated environmental problems never occurred. The caribou
herds increased. Tourism increased. The Alaskan frontier is still relatively unscathed. Three, it is better to go slow than fast. Waiting
to start pipeline work may have caused more harm than a more methodical approach. We have the opportunity now to take the slower
approach with ANWR. If we wait, it could ruin the reserve.

Drilling in ANWR directly trades off with oil produced in countries with little or no environmental regulations – it’s a net increase for
the environment.
Arctic Power, 04
(http://www.anwr.org/archives/alaska_gov_murkowski_promotes_alaskas_resources.php)

Congress has failed to allow drilling on some 2,000 square acres in the ANWR, which contains 19 million acres. “That’s the size of
Colorado,” Murkowski noted. He blames environmentalists who are not aware that Alaska has developed safe, environmentally
sensitive Arctic drilling. “Our growing reliance on imported oil, however, means that instead of getting more oil from Alaska, where
our standards are the highest in the world, it is being produced somewhere else that has far less environmental oversight.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             265/448


                              AT: DRILLING IN ANWR KILLS BIODIVERSITY

Empirically Denied – Prudhoe Bay is a similar environment that was drilled with no effects.
Investor's Business Daily 11-11, 2004 Thursday

And the reasons to tap it are far more compelling than those for leaving it alone. For the latter, we go to Jim Waltman of the National
Wildlife Federation: "This is still a magnificent area, and it can still be damaged by oil drilling." "Can be" is not the same as "will be."
On what basis do environmentalists claim that drilling will damage ANWR? Since 1977, oil companies have pumped 12.8 billion
barrels from Prudhoe Bay, about 100 miles to the west. And though Prudhoe may not be pristine, it's no environmental disaster either.
If it were, would its caribou population have expanded more than 10-fold -- to 32,000 from 3,000 -- since production began?
Funny how we never hear numbers like those from the environmentalists. Nor are we told how insignificant the ANWR field would be
relative to the refuge and the rest of Alaska. ANWR is a sprawling wilderness of 19.6 million acres located in a state so vast that, at
more than 663,000 square miles, would swallow about half of the continental U.S. A three-square-mile oil field in ANWR would be
no more than a speck. The refuge is also a cold, barren ZIP Code where the sun doesn't shine nearly two months a year. In a place so
small, remote and uninviting, who'd know if any damage were done? And how serious could it get, given that the refuge would be the
most highly regulated field in history?

ANWR is too small to be environmentally key.
University Wire 11-15, 2004 Monday

When vetoing the bill in 1995, Clinton said, "This budget would give oil companies the right to drill in the last unspoiled Arctic
wilderness in Alaska. And it is loaded with special interest provisions that squander our natural resources." However, ANWR is
roughly the size of South Carolina (19 million acres) and the only section of ANWR worth developing is 2,000 to 5,000 acres -- about
the size of an average farm in central Illinois. Much like Green Bay, this area receives only a few hundred tourists each year because it
is a barren, inhospitable tundra with an average temperature of about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Even so, 92 percent of the refuge will
remain undisturbed if ANWR is opened for drilling. Packers suck.

No risk of impact – tech checks.
Arctic Power, 04
(http://www.anwr.org/case.htm)

   Petroleum development at Prudhoe Bay has not negatively affected wildlife. For instance, the Central Arctic caribou herd is at
home with pipeline facilities and has grown from 3,000 to as high as 27,100 in the last 20 years. Drilling activity in ANWR would be
limited to winter months when wildlife does not frequent the coastal plain.     Constantly improving technology has greatly reduced
the footprint of Arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, facility designs show the footprint would be 64% smaller.

Tech prevents environmental harm
Josef Herbet, Associated Press Writer, “Bush Looks Anew to Alaska Oil Drilling,” 11-10-2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4605855,00.html

Environmentalists already are gearing up to wage an intense lobbying campaign to keep oil rigs out of the refuge's coastal plain, a
breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen and site of an annual influx of millions of migratory birds. ``This is
as serious a threat to the refuge as any that has come before,'' said Jim Waltman of the National Wildlife Federation. ``But the facts
haven't changed. This is still a magnificent area and it can still be damaged by oil drilling.'' But geologists believe 11 billion barrels
of oil lie beneath the refuge's tundra and ice, and drilling supporters contend they can be tapped without damage to the environment or
wildlife.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                    266/448


                                                AT: NO TIMEFRAME

Opening ANWR immediately injects money into the economy and solves many oil woes.
Adams, 11-9-04
(Alan, Served 20 years in the Alaska Legislature, http://www.anwr.org/archives/not_opening_anwr_is_irresponsible.php, 11-9-04)

Although we have always acknowledged that ANWR oil might take seven to 10 years to develop, we have forgotten about its
immediate impact of billions of dollars within 21 months. We have forgotten to keep reminding our friends in Massachusetts or
Georgia or California that their lifestyle depends on oil and their peace of mind depends on American oil.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                  267/448


                       *** R&D COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            268/448

                                                             R&D 1NC

Counter Plan text: The United States federal government should allocate 25 billion US dollars to renewable energy research
and development, modeled after the Manhattan Project for Energy.

A government backed R&D program is necessary for sustainable renewable technologies
FOCUS The Nation 07
FOCUS The Nation “Invest in the Clean Energy Revolution” Oct 12, 2007
http://www.focusthenation.org/forum/index.php?topic=18.0 (July 21, 2008)
To provide the low-cost climate stabilization tools that today’s young people will need in the near future, the US government should
invest $25 billion dollars per year in public research, development & diffusion (RD&D) of clean energy technologies. Examples
include, but are not limited to, energy efficiency, wind, active and passive solar, biofuels from non-food crops, geothermal, tidal, small
scale hydro, storage technologies including batteries, and fuel cells. To insure program-effectiveness, tie subsidies to demonstrated
reductions in both cost and global warming pollution.
To stabilize global warming at the low end of the possible range (3-4 degrees F) will require deep cuts in global warming pollution
beginning in about 2020. In the US, reductions in emissions of roughly 15%-20% per decade will be needed. To achieve this, today’s
college students will face the truly heroic task of rewiring the entire world with a suite of clean energy technologies-- technologies that
currently do not exist, or are not currently cost competitive. But technologies do not reach critical mass overnight: they often take 20
years to mature. And as with the jet plane, the silicon chip and the internet, early government support will be critical.
Why $25 billion? Preliminary research suggests that US investments in this range—combined with investment efforts by other
governments and the private sector—could help stabilize the climate at a warming of around 4 degrees F. How much is $25 billion?
About $250 dollars per household, or equivalent to three months of spending on the war in Iraq. It is also MUCH larger than current
US government clean energy RD&D, which is currently less than $1 billion (excluding corn-based ethanol). Scaling up to a $25
billion Clean Energy Project would be comparable to what the country did with WWII’s Manhattan Project that built the atomic
bomb, or the Kennedy-era Apollo Project, that lead to the moon landing. In fact there is a modern Apollo Alliance working to
promote this clean energy revolution, stressing the economic and job benefits of being a technology leader.The purpose of the Clean
Energy Project is to create a whole suite of technological “winners”—options that greatly reduce pollution, and which also—as a
result of technological breakthroughs, economies of scale, and learning by doing—experience large drops in cost. When these winners
become cost competitive with “dirty” technologies like coal plants, then low income countries like China, India, and Brazil will be
installing solar arrays and wind farms not only because they have to because the planet is heating up fast, but more fundamentally
because they will be the cheapest option available.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                        Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                             269/448

                                      SOLVENCY – RENEWABLE ENERGY

Efficiency programs and tech development lower the costs of renewables
PHYSORG 08
PHYSORG – Science, Physics, Tech, Nano, News “Major progress in technology needed for 25 percent renewable energy use to be
affordable” June 24, 08 http://www.physorg.com/news133538880.html (accessed July 21, 2008)
While the 25 x '25 goal would significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Toman said a broader package of policy options that
includes, but does not rely solely upon, increased use of renewable energy could produce equal benefits with less cost.
Among the study's other key findings:
-- Renewable energy technology will have to improve at the very significant pace envisioned by some renewable energy supporters
in order to enjoy low-cost impacts.
-- Significant increases in the use of wind power are possible, but only with substantial technical advances to facilitate greater use of
less-productive locations.
-- More moderate renewable energy targets – such as 15 or 20 percent – reduce expenditure impacts more than proportionately,
though carbon dioxide reductions also are less significant.
-- The federal government's policy approach to pricing of renewable motor fuels will significantly affect fuel demand and society's
total energy expenditures.
"In particular, passing the cost of more-expensive renewable fuels to gas pump prices will result in improved energy efficiency,
though it will cost consumers more," Toman said. "Subsidizing more-expensive fuels will save people money at the pump, but only
because the expense is shifted to the federal budget."

Funding and political will, will allow this renewable revolution
World Future Fund 03
World Future Fund “THE NEED FOR A MANHATTAN PROJECT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY ” 10/31/03
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reports/WFF%20-%20Renewable%20Energy.pdf (accessed July 20, 2008)

People claimed that we could never win the Cold War. People said the budget deficit could never be tamed. When there is a
mobilization of the national will, major achievements can be attained. In the quest for a national and global renewable energy
revolution, defeat is not an option. This is something that must happen. America needs to devote at least one billion dollars a year on
this for the next ten years and make this a top national priority for both the public and the private sector.


R and D has sustained solvency
Klein 08
David R. Klein Daily News-Miner David R. Klein is a member of North Star Veterans for Peace in Fairbanks. “Current generation
must act on global warming” July 20, 08 http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/20/current-generation-must-act-global-
warming/?opinion (July 21, 2008)
Added benefits will be the scaling down of fuel costs as demand decreases, which will stimulate the return to a more stable economy.
Another associated benefit will be extension of the availability of fossil fuels for their use by our children and their children in the not
too distant future, who we hope, with the help of new technology, will have learned to use fossil fuels in a less wasteful and more
responsible fashion than we have.
Much can be accomplished along these lines at all levels of government through incentives for increased efficiency and conservation
of energy use by industry, in transportation and in the home. Major financial support by government and the energy industry is needed
to accelerate development and production of renewable and other alternative energy that can replace a major portion of the use of oil,
coal, and other fossil fuels.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         270/448

                                             SOLVENCY – ECONOMIES

R&D success is realistic, and guaranteed to return positive economic results
Kammen 06
Daniel Kammen Professor in the Energy and Resources Group (ERG)Professor of Public Policy in the Goldman School of Public
PolicyCo-director Berkeley Center for the EnvironmentDirector, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL)University
of California, Berkeley “Climate Change Technology Research:Do We Need a ‘Manhattan Project’? for the Environment” Sept 21, 06
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_kztccc1b4oJ:rael.berkeley.edu/files/Kammen_House_GovReform.pdf+%22manhattan+project
%22+climate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=safari (July 22, 2008)
Comparing a major R&D initiative on climate to past programs In our recent work we have asked how feasible it would be to raise
investment to levels commensurate with the energy-related challenges we face. One way to consider the viability of such a project is
to set the magnitude of such a program in the context of previous programs that this committee has participated in launching and
monitoring. Scaling up R&D by 5 or 10 times from current levels is not a ‘pie in the sky’ proposal, in fact it is consistent with the
scale of several previous federal programs (Table 1), each of which took place in response to a clearly articulated national need. While
expanding energy R&D to five or ten times today’s level would be a significant initiative, the fiscal magnitude of such a program is
well within the range of previous programs, each of which have produced demonstrable economic benefits beyond the direct program
objectives.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           271/448


                                             SOLVENCY – INNOVATION

Empirically, research has lead to cutting edge innovations
Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 07
Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal “WIND ENERGY AND ITS IMPACT ON FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
PLANNING: POWERING RENEWABLE ENERGY IN CANADA AND ABROAD'” 2007
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4206222986&format=GNBFI
&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4206222990&cisb=22_T4206222989&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=22
1806&docNo=1l (July 21, 2008)
In the context of global environmental reforms like the Kyoto Protocol (The Protocol), harnessing renewable forms of energy such as
wind becomes a crucial step in meeting broad objectives of sustainable resource development. n53 The Protocol was a global
agreement ratified in 1997 by developed nations, in response to the increasing demands of renewable energy use and high rates of
industrialized pollution. n54 The Protocol curbs greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and contributes to global climate change.
 [*209] While Canada signed the Protocol, other industrialized countries, including many traditional energy producers, were skeptical
of the threat posed by global warming. n55 Indeed, commentators debate the costs and benefits of the Protocol, and whether there is a
dramatic shift in climate change. n56 Despite this, searching for renewable energy sources is a high priority for nations striving to
change their methods of extracting and using natural resources, while achieving economic self-sufficiency and price controls on
soaring energy costs. n57
In the past twenty years, researchers in universities, private research labs, and utility companies have developed or improved upon
renewable forms of energy, including wind energy. n58 For instance, physicists and aerodynamic engineers have been improving upon
the technology that is behind wind turbine operations. n59 This work has been using cutting-edge materials and developing innovative
designs of wind turbines in order to improve electricity output. n60 This process helps reduce the electricity consumption in cities,
towns, and remote communities such as farms. n61

Government investment in R and D would produce scientific break throughs
Kock 08
Jerusalem Post New York's legendary Jewish former mayor Ed Koch “Koch's Comments: The next Manhattan Project'” June 26 08
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/the_next_manhattan_project_posted (July 22, 2008)
The availability of the hydrogen-powered car, the Honda FCS Clarity, just leased to several hundred people in southern California,
reinforces for me the need for an urgent government research program devoted solely to ending the energy crisis.
Last year, $327 billion flowed from the United States to oil producing countries, hugely contributing to our current economic
crisis. This year the dollars spent on importing foreign oil are undoubtedly far greater: oil in 2007 ranged from $60 to $92 a barrel and
last week reached $139. America's estimated annual oil bill for 2008 will be $400 billion.
According to The New York Times of June 20th, "Honda's president said that the Clarity costs several hundred thousand dollars to
make," so it isn't really anything more than a gimmick today. However, with government-backed research, it is likely that we could
make the hydrogen engine and battery readily available at an affordable price. The Manhattan Project - building the atomic bomb -
cost $2 billion, $21 billion in today's dollars. A similar program dedicated to dealing with the country's energy crisis could help
develop new nuclear power plants and refineries, and expand drilling offshore and in Alaska, including ANWR (Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge). Energy is to industry what oxygen is to humans and other animals. Without it we would die, and in the case of
energy, our standard of living would be vastly reduced.
A Manhattan Project would enlist, as it did in World War II, the best minds available who could determine what is practical and
environmentally safe. It would deal with short-term and long-term measures, including conservation, and its scientific breakthroughs
would be available to all of America's industry.

Projects like the MP bring a variety of experts together, allowing the most effective solvency
AMIDON 05
JOHN M. AMIDON is the 57th Wing Vice Commander. He is responsible for 40 squadrons comprising the Air Force's largest, most
diverse flying wing “A “Manhattan Project” for Energy” 2005 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf (accessed July 20,
2008)
An ancillary bonus—clean air. Envi- ronmentalists have championed many of the above ideas for years but have been largely
ignored or grudgingly pla- cated with half-measures. Until now, economic considerations have trumped many of the
environmentalists’ argu- ments as cheap gas and lack of govern- ment commitment knocked the props out from under the green
platform. The Manhattan Project for energy would provide an ideal convergence of interests, bringing the economist, diplomat,
soldier, and environ- mentalist under the same tent. In addition to girding energy security, PHEVs and TCP biorefineries offer
dramatic im- provements in the pollution impact of the transportation sector by either eliminating noxious byproducts en- tirely or
transferring to less polluting energy sources.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           272/448

                                  SOLVENCY – DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Lack of R and D has disastrous effects on the environment and developing nations
World Future Fund 03
World Future Fund “THE NEED FOR A MANHATTAN PROJECT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY ” 10/31/03
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reports/WFF%20-%20Renewable%20Energy.pdf (accessed July 20, 2008)
Since early 1980 America has slashed its research funding for renewable energy by over 75%.
The results have been grim. American dependence on foreign oil has hit record levels. In 1989 for the first time, the majority of
oil consumed in America came from overseas. All indications are that this figure will rise sharply in the next ten years. (At the time
of Pearl Harbor we were a net oil exporter.)
Meanwhile, the lack of safe renewable energy has forced the developing world to adopt energy policies that have totally disastrous
environmental consequences. A key cause of deforestation is the use of fuel wood for energy in many key Third World states. This
has had particularly grim results in arid areas, where there is little rain. In China and India air pollution levels are far above minimum
safe standards for human health.
Without a technological advance in renewable energy, it will simply not be possible for the poor nations of the world to develop in a
safe and sustainable manner. It will not be possible for the world to cut its carbon emissions without damaging economic growth.


It’s vital that people in developing nations have access to energy
Ginsberg 07
Mark Ginsberg, a member of the board of directors for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy “Energy Official Discusses Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy” Sept 6, 07 http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-
english/2007/September/20070906153729xjsnommiS0.2861139.html (July 21, 2008)
A [Mark Ginsberg]: Energy affects developing countries. The uncertainty of power or not having lights for kids to study is a major
hurdle. There have been a number of rural power initiatives over the years. Bringing small photovoltaic (solar cell) water pumps to a
rural village can help assure reliable water supply. A small wind turbine can provide a clean source of energy. Both the US and
international agencies are pursuing active programs in developing economies to bring more reliable and affordable power.
People are sometimes surprised about how much the US government is doing. Here is a website www.eere.energy.gov that can give
you some information on the many programs we at the Department of Energy are doing in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Here's an example of how much more visible energy has become. The 2008 Olympics in Beijing promised to be the "greenest." We
have been working with them to significantly improve the energy efficiency at the Olympic Village which will house 17,000 athletes.
In the middle is a building that will receive the athletes during the games and become a child care center afterward. That building will
be a zero energy building! And the Olympics will get much of its power from wind farms in Mongolia!
Q [adolatkal]: Many multinational/international companies today invest heavily in their people as the most valuable assets. What are
the best places for creating/developing high calibre top managers, who can challenge all issues of the 21 century, debated so hot in the
webchat? Where are the most prepared faculty with their relevant research and practices? An emeritus MBA professor on IHRM
Implications and Career Strategy Development.
A [Mark Ginsberg]: I'm not so knowledgeable about how to train or where to find high caliber managers. I do know the energy
industry will rely on technical experts as well as good managers. Our universities and technical schools need to continue to emphasize
science education. We have to have a trained workforce of skilled installers and repair people to make energy systems run most
efficiently. As with much in life, we need balance between good human skills and good technical skills.
Mark Ginsberg: Thanks for your interest in energy issues and thanks for the opportunity to discuss it with you. Quite literally, our
world will depend on efficient and affordable energy technologies. We at the Department of Energy will continue to promote energy
efficiency and renewable energy as a key way to make the world a better place.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                         Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                              273/448

                                       SOLVENCY – NATIONAL SECURITY

MP would boost national security, pulling funds away from hostile nations
Trading Markets 08
Trading Markets“Senate Republican Conference: Alexander Proposes New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy Independence at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory” May 9 08 http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1533274/accessed July 20, 2008)
*"Instead of ending a war, the goal will be clean energy independence - so that we can deal with rising gasoline prices, electricity
prices, clean air, climate change and national security - for our country first, and - because other countries have the same urgent needs
and therefore will adopt our ideas - for the rest of the world."
*"By independence I do not mean that the United States would never buy oil from Mexico or Canada or Saudi Arabia. By
independence I do mean that the United States could never be held hostage by any country for our energy needs."
*"In 1942, many were afraid that the first country to build an atomic bomb could blackmail the rest of the world. Today, countries that
supply oil and natural gas can blackmail the rest of the world."
*"This year Americans will pay $500 billion overseas for oil - that's $1,600 for each one of us - some of it to nations that are hostile or
even trying to kill us by bankrolling terrorists. Sending $500 billion abroad weakens our dollar. It is half our trade deficit. It is forcing
gasoline prices toward $4 a gallon and crushing family budgets."



The MP promotes efficiency, which is the best way to increase national security
DiPeso 01
EP Policy Director Jim DiPeso “America, it's time for a New Manhattan Project!” Fall 01
http://www.repamerica.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.2_NewManhattanProject.html (July 21, 2008)
From a national security standpoint, efficiency is the perfect energy resource because it is dispersed, decentralized, and domestic.
Efficiency does not put dollars in terrorists’ pockets. Efficiency cannot be bombed. Efficiency does not rely on chokepoint
infrastructure such as tankers, pipelines, or refineries. Efficiency does not bind America into alliances with dictatorial regimes in an
unstable region. Efficiency does not risk the lives of American soldiers defending energy resources far from home. Efficiency does not
expose our national security to coups and cartels.
In the New Manhattan Project, we can develop decentralized energy technologies less reliant on vulnerable choke points. Solar and
fuel cells, for example, produce power at the point of use. Dispersed energy sources will complicate terrorist target planning.
Renewable technologies will produce energy from sources on American soil. Hydrogen to power fuel cells in buildings and cars could
be produced from water or natural gas. Heat beneath Southwestern deserts, California’s sunshine, and the Great Plains winds can be
harnessed to generate electricity.
Cogeneration in factories produces both heat and power far more efficiently than America’s conventional power plants, which on
average throw away enough waste heat to power all of Japan.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         274/448

                                        SOLVENCY – OIL DEPENDENCE

The United States needs to create a program like the MP to shift away from the historic dependence on oil
AMIDON 05
JOHN M. AMIDON is the 57th Wing Vice Commander. He is responsible for 40 squadrons comprising the Air Force's largest, most
diverse flying wing “A “Manhattan Project” for Energy” 2005 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf (accessed July 20,
2008)
The American presence in the Middle East stretches back to the closing days of World War II, when President Franklin Roosevelt
met King Saud aboard a U.S. warship in the Suez Canal. Through the ensuing 30 years, Washington sought to maintain oil access
and contain the Soviet Union by cultivating Persian Gulf allies. The mu- tually beneficial relationship between the United States and
the Middle East oil-producing countries was forever altered by the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent petroleum embargo. The
1973–1974 embargo highlighted the strategic importance of the Middle East and elevated oil access to a core national interest. The
end of the Cold War and the rise of Islamic fundamen- talism further shifted the security focus from keeping a mutual enemy, Russia,
out of the region to fighting much of the war on terror within the region. Dependence on imported oil, particularly from the Middle
East, has become the elephant in the foreign policy living room, an overriding strategic consideration composed of a multitude of
issues. In the short term, U.S. options are driven by the imperative to achieve a favorable outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan and on
other battle- fields of the war on terror, but we must also find a way to extricate ourselves from reliance on the Middle East and other
oil-producing countries.
Current energy strategy assumes that this country can meet its oil needs by managing the oil-producing countries diplomatically and
militarily. However, this thinking overestimates the available oil supply, ignores growing instability in the oil-producing countries,
and understates the military costs of preserving access. Today’s strategy must adopt a more realistic view of the limited avail-able oil
and recognize the diplomatic and military costs of obtaining it. If the strategy were to correctly estimate the remaining supply and
recognize the cost to the Nation of accessing that oil, it would encourage users to consume less and accelerate development of
alternatives. The United States must embark on a comprehensive plan to achieve energy independence—a type of Manhattan Project
for energy—to deploy as many conservation and re-placement measures as possible.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      275/448

                                      SOLVENCY – OIL CONSUMPTION

MP could help reverse the US’s poor fuel savings record
AMIDON 05
JOHN M. AMIDON is the 57th Wing Vice Commander. He is responsible for 40 squadrons comprising the Air Force's largest, most
diverse flying wing “A “Manhattan Project” for Energy” 2005 http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf (accessed July 20,
2008)
A national energy plan along the lines of the historic Manhattan Project is needed now. America faces a strate- gic imperative to
decisively deploy a range of solutions, both interim and permanent, to address energy security. Such an effort might consist of two
phases: conservation and the energy power shift. The U.S. fuel savings record is not impressive. The aftermath of the 1973– 1974 oil
embargo saw the establish- ment of Government-mandated auto- motive mileage standards. By 1985, the average fuel economy of the
U.S. fleet had risen from 12.9 to 27 miles per gallon (MPG) to 27 MPG. However, since 1985, these gains have remained largely
static as economy targets re- mained unchanged. Improved fuel economy has been thwarted by the policy decision to set separate
lower economy standards for trucks. The growing percentage of lower-economy trucks has led to a decline in the over- all economy of
the automotive fleet.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                          Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                               276/448

                                                 SOLVENCY – BIOFUELS

MP provides incentives for farmers to use energy crops
AMIDON 05
JOHN M. AMIDON is the 57th Wing Vice Commander. He is responsible for 40 squadrons comprising the Air Force's largest, most
diverse flying wing “A “Manhattan Project” for Energy” 2005 Phttp://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf (accessed July 20,
2008)
Energy Lab studies show that an invest- ment of $31 billion would build 225 plants capable of producing enough ethanol to replace
over 10 percent of gasoline consumption. Farmers need incentives to grow energy crops such as switchgrass, a na- tive plant that does
not require fertil- izer or irrigation. It is estimated that 15 percent of the North American con- tinent consists of land that is unsuit- able
for food farming but workable for switchgrass cultivation. “If all that land was planted with switchgrass, we could replace every single
gallon of gas consumed in the United States with ethanol.” 18 Farm policies that encour- age energy crop plantations are crucial for
creating a firm supply base for cel- lulosic ethanol. Expanded use of hybrid cars and biorefineries provides an interim strat- egy that
enhances energy security while smoothing the transition to the next phase of an energy Manhattan Project, the “Energy Power Shift,”
19 a move to emerging transportation technologies that offer permanent energy security.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                      Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                           277/448

                                                 SOLVENCY – CLIMATE

MP will address the environmental consequences within the next generation
Trading Markets 08
Trading Markets“Senate Republican Conference: Alexander Proposes New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy Independence at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory” May 9 08 http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1533274/accessed July 20, 2008)
*"Then there are the environmental consequences. If worldwide energy usage continues to grow as it has, humans will inject as much
CO2 into the air from fossil fuel burning between 2000 and 2030 as they did between 1850 and 2000. There is plenty of coal to help
achieve our energy independence, but there is no commercial way (yet) to capture and store the carbon from so much coal burning -
and we have not finished the job of controlling sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions."
*"Step-by-step solutions or different tracks toward one goal are easier to digest and have fewer surprises. And, of course, the original
Manhattan Project itself proceeded along several tracks toward one goal.
"Here are my criteria for choosing several grand challenges:
"Grand consequences, too - The United States uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. Interesting solutions for small problems
producing small results should be a part of some other project.
"Real scientific breakthroughs - This is not about drilling offshore for oil or natural gas in an environmentally clean way or building a
new generation of nuclear power plants, both of which we already know how to do - and, in my opinion, should be doing.
"Five years - Grand challenges should put the United States within five years firmly on a path to clean energy independence so that
goal can be achieved within a generation.


It’s important to increase R and D now, in order to solve Climate change
The Telegraph 08
The Telegraph “'Tenfold R&D rise needed for climate change'” 4/22/08
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/22/easecurity122.xml (July 21, 2008)
The equivalent scaling-up of research and development needed to be undertaken by every major country to prepare for the eventuality
that the climate would reach a "tipping point" where warming and sea level rise began to accelerate, he said.
If the change did not happen so fast, and climate change was more benign than the worst-case scenario, the research would not be
wasted as technological advances in nuclear power, biofuels, carbon capture and storage and renewables were urgently needed
anyway, he added.
Actually deploying that technology, however, in the event of a "crash" programme would cost £50 billion in America alone, though
this sum would have to be found by both the private sector and the state.
The report said: "If climate change is not slowed and critical environmental thresholds are exceeded, then it will become a primary
driver of conflicts between and within states."
It added: "Climate impacts will force us into a radical rethink of how we identify and secure our national interests. For example, our
energy and climate security will increasingly depend on stronger alliances with other large energy consumers, such as China, to
develop and deploy new energy technologies, and less on relations with oil producing states.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                               Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                    278/448


                                                 AT: R&D HURTS THE ECONOMY

More research is needed to understand climate change, and the costs and benefits cannot be evaluated in simply economic
terms
Smit and Pilifosova 01
BARRY SMIT(CANADA) AND OLGA PILIFOSOVA(KAZAKHSTAN) UNFCCC secretariat. “Adaptation to Climate Change in
the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity” 2001 http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap18.pdf (July 21,
2008)
Current knowledge of adaptation and adaptive capacity is insufficient for reliable prediction of adaptations; it also is insufficient for
rigorous evaluation of planned adaptation options, measures, and policies of governments. C l i m a t e change vulnerability studies
now usually consider adaptation, but they rarely go beyond identifying adaptation options that might be possible; there is little
research on the dynamics of adaptation in human systems, the processes of adaptation decisionmaking, conditions that stimulate or
constrain a d a p t ation, and the role of nonclimatic factors. There are serious limitations in existing evaluations of adaptation
options: Economic benefits and costs are important criteria but are not s u fficient to adequately determine the appropriateness of a d
a ptation measures; there also has been little research to date on the roles and responsibilities in adaptation of individuals,
communities, corporations, private and public institutions, governments, and international organizations. Given the scope and variety
of specific adaptation options across sectors, individuals, communities, and locations, as well as the variety of participants—private
and public—involved in most adaptation initiatives, it is probably infeasible to systematically evaluate lists of particular adaptation
measures; improving and applying knowledge on the constraints and opportunities for enhancing adaptive capacity is necessary to
reduce vulnerabilities associated with climate change.



Compared to other expenditures the R&D programs are cost effective and necessary
Manes 08
David Manes political science major at Harding University read on Political Cartel – blog “Alternative Energy Manhattan Project”
April 18, 08 http://politicalcartel.com/2008/04/18/alternative-energy-manhattan-project/ (July 21, 2008)
Up to this point, the government has relied on mild tax incentives and subsidies to gently push the market toward green and alternative
energy sources. This is not enough, and every day, the demand for oil grows from our country and from India, China, and the
developing world while the finite supply declines. Right now, we only feel the effects through slightly raised gas prices, but without
drastic and decisive action, our economic future is in jeopardy.
If $23 billion (Manhattan) or $135 billion (Apollo) seems like a lot of money, think about these comparisons. The US has spent over
$512 already in Iraq with no end in sight and no strategic benefit whatsoever. In 2001, President Bush pushed through tax cuts that
will cost the US over $1.35 trillion over ten years. We drop huge amounts of money at the drop of a hat, and right before us is the
most important project that our nation could take on. I want to hear the presidential candidates and the congressional leadership
talking about this issue. I wouldn’t mind hearing some inspiration and even some lofty goals. Let’s make visionaries like Kennedy
proud with how we confront this challenge as a nation.


MP Would boost the economy while increasing national security – all in a very short Time Frame
Goldberg 03 Lee H. Goldberg is senior counsel in the Corporate Department of the New York office of Loeb & Loeb LLP EE Times “Energy needs a Manhattan
Project” 11/10/03 http://www.eetimes.com/op/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18402545 (accessed July 20, 2008) Perhaps our greatest contribution to national
security would be to challenge the nation to be energy self-sufficient by 2010, cutting consumption of nonrenewable resources by 25
to 50 percent. A large-scale initiative combining conservation with development of renewable and nonrenewable domestic energy
sources would remove several critical choke points that put our economy and society in peril. We have as much at stake now as we did when
America's first Manhattan Project unleashed the power of the atom during World War II, but a "Manhattan II" project would also lay the foundations of
a vibrant economic future. Just after 9/11, a U.S. study showed that roughly 36 percent of our energy came from petroleum, 70 percent
of it for transportation. Roughly two-thirds of the 19.5 million barrels we consumed each day was imported. Meanwhile, our only
untapped domestic reserves, the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, will only produce, at best, an estimated 292,000 barrels per day,
offsetting a meager 2.2 percent of our 13 million-barrel+ per-day foreign oil habit. Electricity is our other lifeblood, and summer's
blackouts were a wake up call. Our antiquated, fragile and vulnerable generation and distribution infrastructure is ripe for an overhaul, not just a face-lift.
Meanwhile, though domestic coal and Canadian natural gas should last for 25+ years, they carry a significant environmental price. Alarming as it is, this crisis also
represents an opportunity. If just a fraction of the $87 billion we are being asked to spend in Iraq went into a Manhattan II-type project, the results would be
transformative. Encouraging commercialization of conservation technologies would yield a bigger reduction in oil consumption than the wildlife preserve could ever
produce, even if the most optimistic estimates were used. Renewable energy-the second half of the Manhattan II project-accounts for 6.8 percent
of our overall production, close to the 8 percent supplied by nuclear. If a fraction of nuclear's subsidies went to develop photovoltaic,
wind, geothermal, biomass-derived fuels and tidal-generating systems, these industries could quickly bootstrap into economic
viability.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                             Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                  279/448

                              SOLVENCY – OIL PRICES AND ECONOMY

MP would lower oil prices and boost the failing agricultural economy
US Fed News Service, Including US State News 08 US Fed News Service, Including US State News. “SEN. ALEXANDER
ISSUES STATEMENT ON NEW MANHATTAN PROJECT TO HELP LOWER ENERGY COSTS FOR TENNESSEE
FARMERS” July 18
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1513316211&SrchMode=1&sid=7&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&R
QT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1216598633&clientId=17822 (accessed July 20, 2008) U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
today told a meeting of local famers that "we need a new Manhattan Project for clean energy independence to lower diesel
costs that are crippling your ability to make your farm turn a profit." "The family budgets of West Tennessee farmers are
facing a triple threat from higher costs due to $4-per-gallon gasoline, rising diesel prices that make operating farm equipment
difficult, and fertilizer costs that are skyrocketing," Alexander said to a gathering of the Carroll County Farm Bureau during
a roundtable discussion on rising energy costs. "The actions we take today can lower gas prices today," said Alexander. "The
reason that's true is that today's price depends so much upon what the expected supply of and demand for oil will be three to
five years from now. As soon as the United States shows that it is committed to producing more and using less oil the price of
gasoline will begin to stabilize and go down."
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          280/448

                                        SOLVENCY – EU COOPERATION

The EU wants us to innovate because they don't have the capacity to do so
Tom Vilsack, Former Governor of Iowa, 6/13/’8 [Federal News Service, ln]
And I think the United States has a unique responsibility and I think a great opportunity. When we were in Europe, I was struck by a
comment that a British official made to us when he said, "We can't innovate enough in the E.U. We are expecting and anticipating the
United States to innovate. We're looking to you for those new technologies."


The EU and other nations have incorporated R&D programs
Pandey 08 Dr Rahul Pandey The author is a former faculty member of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and Indian
Institute of Management (IIM) “Did G8 Summit provide answers to the Global Energy Crisis?” July 21 08
http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/711572.html (accessed July 20, 2008) Bright prospects are lurking globally for renewable
energy as centralized conventional technologies are declining, natural gas faces uncertainty beyond the next 2-3 decades, and
environmental concerns are intensifying. Prominent EU countries and Japan have already begun serious initiatives to transition to low-
carbon society by 2050 for which the state is providing support to large scale development and commercialization of renewable
energy technologies. Thanks to rapid increase in R&D investments and installed cumulative capacity globally, renewable energy
systems based on wind, solar and biomass are witnessing high learning rates as reflected in progress ratios of 70-90% (implying 10-
30% fall in capital costs for every doubling of capacity). As most of these systems are viable at small scale, they hold promise also for
the rural and remote regions of developing countries where majority of the poor live. It is clear that the countries who are making
serious investment in technological and delivery infrastructure aspects of such options now will gain distinct advantage in the future.
They will be able to deliver cheaper and cleaner energy to their people.

The EU is focused on renewables research
CORDIS NEWS 08 CORDIS News is a daily online news service provided by the European Union's official research and innovation
information service, CORDIS. “MEPs vote on Strategic Energy Technology Plan” July 11 08
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=29648 (accessed July 20, 2008) The EU
needs to reach its objectives in the reduction of CO2 emissions and renewable energy while maintaining its economic
competitiveness in global markets,' commented Mr Buzek. 'Therefore I propose incentives for low cost, low emission energy
technologies and support from the EU budget.' 
 
 The EU has set itself targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20%
by 2020, and by 2050 it hopes to reduce emissions by 60 to 80%. 
 
 The report aims to achieve this ambitious goal by setting out a
plan on what the energy agenda for Europe should be. The agenda includes promoting research into new, clean energy
technologies which the parliament views as crucial to successfully fighting climate change. 
 
 Such technologies also have the
added benefit of not only helping Europe achieve its targets on greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy and energy
efficiency, but also in securing Europe's energy supply in the future. 
 
 'Energy security is very important for Europe, as well
as lower cost ecological energy,' added Mr Buzek. 'Current challenges of preventing further global warming and the cost of
CO2 emissions represent additional financial burden to our economies. Thus emissions need to be reduced to bring down the
costs. The key to this is the development of low emission technologies.' 

Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          281/448

                                      SOLVENCY – COMPETTITIVENESS

The US has failed to put R & D into renewables, where other nations that have are more sucessful
Hiro 08 Dilip Hiro is the author of numerous books on the Middle East. His most recent book, Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the
World's Vanishing Oil Resources (Nation Books) is a vivid history of how oil has revolutionized civilian life, war, and world politics
over the last century, as well as of alternatives to oil, including renewable energy sources.. “Energy reality starts to bite” July 17 08
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG17Dj04.htmlaccessed July 20, 2008) Under the presidencies of Gerald Ford and
Jimmy Carter, the US modestly improved the fuel efficiency of its vehicles, as stipulated by a federal law. Carter also announced a
$100 million federal research and development program focused on solar power and symbolically had a solar water heater installed on
the White House roof. During the subsequent presidency of Ronald Reagan, when oil prices fell sharply, energy efficiency and
conservation policies went with them, as did the idea of developing renewable sources of energy. This was dramatized when Reagan
ordered the removal of that solar panel from the White House. In the private sector, utilities promptly slashed by half their
investments in energy efficiency. President George H W Bush, an oil man, followed Reagan's lead. And his son, George W (along
with Vice President Dick Cheney, former chief executive of energy services giant Halliburton) has done absolutely nothing to wean
Americans away from their much talked about "addiction to oil". Even now, instead of urging Americans to cut oil usage (and putting
a little legislative heft behind those urgings), politicians of both parties are blaming soaring gas and diesel prices on "speculators",
conveniently ignoring how thin a line divides "speculators" from "investors". In Japan, on the other hand, the government and private
companies have stayed on course since the first oil shock. Despite the doubling of Japan's gross domestic product during the 1970s
and 1980s, its annual overall levels of energy consumption have remained unchanged. Today, Japan uses only half as much energy for
every dollar's worth of economic activity as the European Union or the United States. In addition, national and local authorities have
continually enforced strict energy-conservation standards for new buildings. It is, again, Japan that has made significant progress
when it comes to renewable sources of energy. By 2006, for instance, it was responsible for producing almost half of total global solar
power, well ahead of the US, even though it was an American, Russell Ohl, who invented the silicon solar cell, the building block of
solar photovoltaic panels, which convert sunshine into electricity.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            282/448


                                            SOLVENCY – LAUNDRY LIST

MP would benefit the economy, help fight terrorists – it’s good for a laundry list of reasons
AMIDON 05
JOHN M. AMIDON is the 57th Wing Vice Commander. He is responsible for 40 squadrons comprising the Air Force's largest, most
diverse flying wing “A “Manhattan Project” for Energy” 2005 Phttp://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf (accessed July 20,
2008)
An ancillary bonus—clean air. Envi- ronmentalists have championed many of the above ideas for years but have been largely ignored
or grudgingly pla- cated with half-measures. Until now, economic considerations have trumped many of the environmentalists’ argu-
ments as cheap gas and lack of govern- ment commitment knocked the props out from under the green platform. The Manhattan
Project for energy would provide an ideal convergence of interests, bringing the economist, diplomat, soldier, and environ- mentalist
under the same tent. In addition to girding energy security, PHEVs and TCP biorefineries offer dramatic im- provements in the
pollution impact of the transportation sector by either eliminating noxious byproducts en- tirely or transferring to less polluting energy
sources. America’s Strategic Imperative The current world energy situation poses a national threat unparalleled in 225 years. The
economy, particularly the transportation component, has be- come heavily dependent on foreign oil. Concurrent with rising demand
are indications that world production may soon peak, followed by permanent de- cline and shortage. Moreover, most of the remaining
oil is concentrated in distant, politically hostile locations, inviting interdiction by enemies. Over the last 60 years, policymak- ers have
repeatedly applied diplomatic and military triage to the problem of national energy security while generally ignoring the economic
prospects for a solution. Today, the Nation is engaged in a global war on terror throughout the same resource-rich area on which the
safety of its economy hinges. Eco- nomic stagnation or catastrophe lurk close at hand, to be triggered by an- other embargo, collapse
of the Saudi monarchy, or civil disorder in any of a dozen nations. Barring these events, ris- ing world demand and falling produc- tion
could place the United States in di- rect military competition with equally determined nations. It is doubtful that any military, even
that of a global hege- mon, could secure an oil lifeline indefi- nitely. Failing to take urgent economic steps now will necessitate more
painful economic steps later and likely require protracted military action. Meeting this dilemma with a tech- nical solution plays on
America’s great- est strengths, those of the inventor and the innovator. Rapid execution of a two-phase Manhattan Project for energy
will provide near-term relief measures while laying the foundation for the long-term establishment of an “Energy Power Shift”
economy. Reduced depen- dence on imported oil would also allow the Nation to pursue a more pragmatic foreign policy, freed of the
necessity to engage in all episodes of Middle East or OPEC history. This strategy denies al Qaeda and its allies a key argument in their
war against the United States; reducing the strategic importance of the Middle East will obviate the need for “us” to be “there” and
diminish the cultural friction between Muslims and the West. Absent the plausible charge that the U.S. role in the Middle East is
motivated solely by oil, U.S. efforts to nurture democracy, and local percep- tion of those efforts, could result in a new era of good
will. Although this problem is daunting, it is not unsolv- able; instead, it demands prompt and certain action to ensure an energy-rich
and peaceful future.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                    Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                         283/448

                                           AT: PERM (CAP AND TRADE)

To maintain a competitive edge, R and D cannot be used with Cap and trade programs
Electric Utility Week 07 Electric Utility Week “Transmission surcharge should be the vehicle for funding low-carbon R&D, Rogers
suggests” Dec 3 07
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4204265623&format=GNBFI
&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4204265626&cisb=22_T4204265625&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=
7957&docNo=17(July 21, 2008) Duke Energy's top executive has suggested a surcharge on transmission service to fund research and
development of low-carbon technologies. It would be the best way, he said last week, to spread the cost across the widest possible
array of people. Speaking at the inaugural Platts Lecture in New York City, Jim Rogers stressed the importance of "getting the rules
right from the get-go" as Congress develops legislation to cut emissions that contribute to climate change. The Duke chairman,
president and CEO said that to tackle a problem as massive and long-running as climate change, Americans must break the cycle of
"panic-to-complacency" that has characterized national energy debate. "The key is political action. We need to engage everyone in the
debate." Rogers offered his assessment of cap-and-trade legislation sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman, Independent Democrat-
Connecticut, and John Warner, Republican-Virginia. He favors cap-and-trade, but he also believes the Lieberman-Warner approach is
flawed because it would earmark the proceeds of carbon emission allowance auctions for R&D. Running R&D through the cap-and-
trade mechanism "is a mistake," he insisted. It would unfairly burden consumers in 25 states where coal accounts for more than 50%
of power generation, Rogers said. Innovative work is needed to cut carbon and a "national initiative" is called for to support research,
and a "charge on the wires for every [kilowatt-hour] delivered" in the US "may be the best way to fund" the R&D, he said. In this way,
the responsibility would be "spread out over every consumer in America," rather than placed on the shoulders of ratepayers in coal-
dependent states. Rogers also called for prompt industry action on energy efficiency, which he called the "fifth fuel," complementing
coal, nuclear, natural gas and renewables. "I personally believe we need to act now. ... While the debate is ongoing in Washington"
over climate change and other energy-related issues, "we should be spending more on efficiency." Rogers said he would like to see
"an energy efficiency arms race ... with countries competing against each other." At this point, the US is "behind" in such a race,
Roger said, adding that "Japan is leading and we have to catch up." ? Chris Newkumet
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                                                  Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                       284/448

                                            AT: NO SPILLOVER TO THIRD WORLD

Energy R&D cannot help those in other nations
Pandey 08 Dr Rahul Pandey The author is a former faculty member of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and Indian Institute of Management (IIM) “Did
G8 Summit provide answers to the Global Energy Crisis?” July 21 08 http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/711572.html (accessed July 20, 2008)
The right energy policy for a nation must aim to satisfy energy needs of current and future generations of all citizens in an affordable manner without adverse impact on
the environment. As explained earlier, in today's world, mere domestic availability of a particular fuel may not ensure access of modern energy
services to all. A nation requires a range of resources in the entire energy supply chains -- primary energy, financial capital, material
and human capabilities for development and manufacture of relevant technological systems, and logistical infrastructure for delivery --
to make available useful energy to its citizens at affordable costs over a long period of time.

The CP forces other nations to depend on the US. This dependency leads to a endless system of control in which the US gains
access to other markets and trade to other nations detrement.
Kema 05 Journal of Third World Studies, 4/1/05 by Irogbe, Kema -- Department of Political Science, Claflin University, “GLOBALIZATION AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD” Spring 05
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200504/ai_n13642807/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1 (July 22, 2008)
To fully understand the system of globalization, there is the need to revisit dependency theory. Dependency theory evolved in Latin America
during the 1960s and later it found favor in some writings about Africa and Asia. Since both orthodox as well as the radical writers have assimilated dependency into
their interpretation of development and underdevelopment, resulting in considerable confusion, effort is made here to distinguish the nature of
dependency that the underdeveloped countries are subjected to from what the orthodox scholars may claim. Contemporary perspectives of
dependency reveal the contrasting forms of dominance and dependence among the nations of the capitalist world. A Brazilian social scientist, Theotonio Dos Santos,
lucidly affirms that: By dependence we mean a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and
expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected. The relation of interdependence between two or more economies, and
between these and world trade, assumes the forms of dependence when some countries (the dominant ones) can do this only as a
reflection of that expansion, which can have ...a negative effect on their immediate development.1 In other words, because of the
unequal political, military, and economic relationships between a dependent economy and the dominant external economy, the
structure of the former is shaped as much or more by the requirements of the external economy as by its own domestic needs. The
domestic political economy is not only shaped by the interaction with a more powerful external economy, but is also shaped by the
process. Indeed, the economies of the dependence would be impossible to maintain without the existence and the support of the
external factors. A Chilean economist, Osvaldo Sunkel, captures this perspective: Foreign factors are seen not as external but as
intrinsic to the system, with manifold and sometimes hidden or subtle political, financial, economic, technical and cultural effects
inside the underdeveloped country... Thus, the concept of "dependencia" links the postwar evolution of capitalism internationally to
the discriminatory nature of the local process of development, as we know it. Access to the means and benefits of development is
selective rather than spreading them. The process tends to ensure self-reinforcing accumulation of the privilege for special groups as
well as the continued existence of a marginal class.2 Another fundamental concern of the dependency theory revolves around the
notion that the underdeveloped countries are referred to, by many, as "developing" countries as if to say their development is
evolutionary. The now developed (center) countries have never had the same historical experience compared to that of the impoverished countries of the world.
Whereas the underdeveloped countries have experienced the phenomena of slavery and colonialism, it is not the case with the developed countries. The argument is that
historical situations of dependency have conditioned contemporary underdevelopment in Africa, Asia and Latin America.3 Thus, underdevelopment is not an original
state as some apologists would have us believe. During the colonial era, Africa, Latin America and Asia as well as other colonized territories in the world
became oriented to the export of primary products (principally agricultural), under the control of metropolitan capital, and constituted
as markets for imported manufactures from the same metropolitan countries. Foreign capital came in to construct social overheads -
transportation facilities and utilities that would enhance the exploitation of the people and their natural resources, and for the
maintenance of law and order. With their economic and military power, Europe (later joined by the United States) successfully
controlled the underdeveloped countries for their material benefits. Today, governments of the underdeveloped countries and their entrepreneurs have
no control over international markets for primary products, the prices of which fluctuate and quite often are manipulated by the rich and powerful
nations. Such fluctuations almost always result in unfavorable terms of trade in relation to imports.4 The technology introduced by the CP will
be selfishly used. The US will never allow nations to sustain the technologies on their own, forcing a never ending dependency – coca-cola proves. Kema 05 Journal of
Third World Studies, 4/1/05 by Irogbe, Kema -- Department of Political Science, Claflin University, “GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD” Spring 05 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200504/ai_n13642807/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1 (July
22, 2008) Some apologists for globalization contend that MNCs are so angelic that they would be willing to transfer technology to their
host countries (mostly the underdeveloped countries). One of the most noted examples of this myth involved the Indian government
and the Coca-Cola Corporation. The Indian government demanded that if Coca-Cola wished to continue operating its subsidiary in
India, it had to provide India with the composition of the closely guarded secret formula for the cola syrup that Coca-Cola used in its
most famous product. Coca-Cola declined and ended its Indian operations.15 Common sense dictates that technology is never
willingly transferred but is either stolen or self-acquired. What would have happened if Coca-Cola had shared the secret formula with
India? The government of India would have then established a similar corporation to compete with Coca-Cola. That would have
undermined the goal of Coca-Cola of accentuating monopoly so that it can achieve the bottom line, i.e., maximization of profit. More
importantly, the relationships between the MNCs and the underdeveloped countries are usually asymmetric. The underdeveloped
countries want to have joint ventures and thus attain equal partnerships, but the corporations such as the Coca-Cola in India preferred
the host countries to play a subordinate role, or even no role at all.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          285/448

                                              NET BENEFIT – POLITICS

Energy is the election issue this year and r and d is popular
 Dillon 08 KAREN DILLON The Kansas City Star “Wind Energy Dreams Gain Altitude” July 18 08
http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/711572.html (accessed July 20, 2008) “This is not business as usual,” said Christine Real de
Azua, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association, the national trade association for the industry. “To make this work,
clearly we would need a different set of policies in place.” Real de Azua said it is exciting that the energy crisis is suddenly up front
and center in America, but Washington does not usually move fast on energy issues. Both Pickens and Gore believe the energy crisis
should be the No. 1 issue of the election — one reason for the timing of their own energy campaigns. Pickens has said that to
implement his plan within 10 years, both Congress and the White House must treat the current energy situation as “a national
emergency and take immediate action.” That goes beyond what either presidential candidate has said, but both expressed support this
week. “Pickens’ proposal to break our addiction to foreign oil and significantly ramp up our investments in renewable energy is
precisely in line with what Obama has proposed in his comprehensive energy plan,” said Debbie Mesloh, communications director for
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign in Missouri. In a statement Thursday, Obama said he strongly agreed with Gore that “we cannot drill
our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy. … It’s a strategy that will create
millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced.” Sen. John McCain said in an interview with The Star on Thursday that
moving to renewable energy is a “good idea” that should be studied. To move away from coal-fired power plants, he said, he favors
building at least 45 nuclear power plants by 2030. “All of these alternate forms of energy have to be, one, funded in pure research and
development, and second, see which one wins,” McCain said. “But let them loose, unleash them all.”
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                   Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                        286/448

                       *** EDUCATION COUNTERPLAN ***
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                 Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                      287/448

                                                    EDUCATION 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase funding to K-12 science and math
fields to curb lagging competitiveness and improve economic leadership.

Contention 1: Competition – The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

Increasing youth education solves US competitivness
Banos, Business World, ‘7 (Michael, June 8, “Improved intellectual capital key to knowledge economy”)
Cagayan de Oro City - The key to exploiting opportunities in the so- called knowledge economy is the degree or intensity of
application of knowledge, or "intellectual capital."
This was the main point of the presentation "The Rise of the Knowledge-Based Businesses: Its Implications for the Post-Secondary
Education Sector," by Dr. Ceferino Tiongco, Dean of the School of Education of the University of Asia and the Pacific, during a
recent industry-academe forum to discuss ways to upgrade the quality of education and to improve the work preparedness of graduates
in Northern Mindanao.
"What is new about the so-called knowledge economy is the degree or intensity of application of knowledge or intellectual capital to
economic activity as a result of the advances in information and communications technology," Mr. Tiongco told the forum.
"Knowledge or 'intellectual capital' is fast becoming an organization's primary asset," he said.
Mr. Tiongco said the knowledge economy has brought changes to job content, resulting in greater demand for cognitive abstract
qualifications like decision-making capability, judgment, accuracy, understanding of an organization, and the ability to analyze and
solve problems in unexpected situations.
Also, there is a greater need for social competencies such as customer orientation, punctuality, cooperation, and loyalty to enable
workers to integrate various tasks, including those that they can do on their own and those that have to be done in conjunction with
others.
Some 50 representatives from higher education and technical-vocational institutions, business and industry, and the government joined
the two-day forum hosted by the National Economic and Development Authority serving as technical secretariat to the regional
development council.
The dialogue sought to bring together major stakeholders to address critical issues on the quality and responsiveness of education to
the labor needs of industry. Participants identified "good practices" being implemented in the region and proposed recommendations
to resolve issues and gaps. They also drew action plans to start implementing the priority recommendations.
The group concentrated on five areas as the region's agenda to improve the quality of education and work preparedness of its
graduates including improving the relevance of curriculum or course offerings, strengthening student support and services,
strengthening faculty development programs, increasing support for educational facilities, and strengthening linkages and
partnerships.
Ma. Luisa Gigette Imperial, director of the Institute for Labor Studies of the Department of Labor and Employment, presented the
emerging "key employment generators" of the Philippine economy for the next five years as identified by major industry players.
These include agribusiness, cyberspace (information and communications technology and related fields), hotel and restaurants,
aviation, health services, mining, and medical Tourism. Other cooperating institutions which supported and joined the industry-
academe forum were the Commission on Higher Education, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, and the
Department of Labor and Employment.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                       Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                            288/448


                                        SOLVENCY – COMPETITIVENESS

Education solves US competitivness
Evers, Staffwriter for CNet, ‘7 (Joris, April 18, “Experts: Education key to U.S. competitiveness”
http://news.cnet.com/Experts-Education-key-to-U.S.-competitiveness/2100-1022_3-6176967.html )
CUPERTINO, Calif.--Innovation and U.S. competitiveness will suffer if kids don't get a better education, a panel of experts said
Tuesday. In particular, science, technology, engineering and math education in kindergarten through 12th grade needs a boost,
according to panelists speaking at an event here that's part of a National Governors Association initiative. K-through-12 education has
traditionally been a focus of governors because much of a state's budget is spent there. "In technology and engineering we're really
doing nothing. In math and science we're basically teaching the same things we taught when I was in school and we're teaching it the
same way," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who turns 50 this year. Photo: An innovation initiative As current chair
of the National Governors Association, Napolitano established the "Innovation America" initiative. The goal is to come up with a list
of policies and strategies governors across the U.S. can use to enhance the innovative capacity of their states and their ability to
compete in this global economy, she said. Calling for improvements to U.S. education isn't new. Others, including Microsoft co-
founder Bill Gates, have made similar pleas to help the U.S. stay competitive. The Innovation America effort goes beyond lower
education. It also aims to establish links with higher education and suggests incentives for entrepreneurship, such as tax credits for
early investors and businesses that do research with universities, Napolitano said. "What is going to keep us competitive and what is
going to help us in-source jobs? That is the investment in human capital and that is the investment in innovation," Napolitano said.
The focus from governors is needed as countries including China and India increase their roles in the global marketplace. "The world
is shrinking and now we're really competing for people all across the world," said Sean Walsh, special adviser to California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. California has attracted smart people from across the globe, but that actually points to
shortcomings in the U.S. education system, Walsh said. "In technology and engineering we're really doing nothing. In math and
science we're basically teaching the same things we taught when I was in school and we're teaching it the same way." --Arizona Gov.
Janet Napolitano "We are attracting the best and the brightest from all around the world, but that's making up for the fact that we're
not necessarily producing some of the best and the brightest because our education is not up to snuff," he said. Silicon Valley in
particular is at a crossroads, said Dennis Cima, vice president of education and policy at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which
is made up of businesses in the area. "The crisis is really how America maintains its competitive edge and how Silicon Valley
maintains its competitive edge...The availability of talent is a real huge issue," he said. One possible solution to the talent problem is
promoting math and science among groups that typically don't pick those subjects, said John Thompson, chief executive at Symantec,
which hosted the event. "Science, technology, engineering and math (education) is such an important issue for our company and our
country, more should be done by every single organization to convince young women and minorities to participate and pursue careers
in math and science," Thompson said. "It does represent an opportunity for us to expand the talent pool quite rapidly." Higher
education in California is moving to help lower education with qualified teachers. The University of California and the California
State University systems have committed to a program that should see 2,500 math and science teachers graduate each year by 2010.
"I have seen whole schools and whole school districts where there has not been a single accredited science and math teacher," said
Robert Dynes, president of the University of California.
Tampa Prep 2008-2009                                                                                                     Advantage CPs
Gonzo                                                                                                                          289/448


                                       SOLVENCY – COMPETITIVENESS

Legislation to increase education solves competitiveness
Financial Times, ‘8 (June 27, “A new world faces the next leader)
W hoever moves into the Oval Office in January 2009 will have to deal with a significantly different global economy from the one
George W. Bush inherited just eight years earlier - and will need to forge a very different set of policies to address it. The most
dramatic changes are that the emerging economies - most notably Brazil, Russia, India and China (the Brics) and the big oil exporters
- now play a far greater role in the world economy than they did then, and that the US is now a great deal more dependent on their
financial decisions, economic policies, capital and markets.
Since 2001, the US share of world gross domestic product has fallen from 34 per cent to 28 per cent, while that of the Brics has risen
from 8 per cent to 16 per cent. China's reserves have rocketed from $200bn to $1,800bn, Brazil's from $35bn to $200bn, Russia's from
$35bn to $500bn and India's from $50bn to $300bn. World oil consumers have tran-sferred more than $3,000bn to exporters. Because
of America's very low savings rate and heavy reliance on credit, US consumers, companies, financial institutions and the federal
government must borrow heavily from these countries. The dollar now has a world-class competitor, the euro, which accounts for
nearly 30 per cent of all international currency reserves, a proportion rising fast. And US trade, especially with emerging economies, is
climbing as a portion of GDP, with fast-growing exports now giving the economy a desperately needed boost.
The incoming US administration will need to make significant changes in domestic policy and adopt a more collaborative approach to
the global economy to take advantage of new opportunities and meet new challenges.
First, America's political leaders must recognise that, unless recent improvements in the country's trade balance can be sustained and
accelerated, and domestic savings rise sharply, the US will remain heavily dependent on foreign capital in the form of purchases of
government or corporate bonds, stocks and direct investment. US policymakers will need to find ways to increase domestic savings,
shrink the federal deficit, reduce the heavy reliance of American consumers on credit and curb oil imports. Without these measures,
massive amounts of foreign capital will be needed for years to come. This is not a matter of politics, but of arithmetic.
In such circumstances, the US must remain attractive to foreign capital or suffer adverse consequences. Sound finances, enabling the
US to borrow on reasonable terms, will remain an important factor in national strength. Frequent financial crises, large trade
imbalances, a series of outsized budget deficits and failure to put Social Security and Medicare on a more sound financial foo