Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Student Congress Legislation & Evidence
Student Congress Legislation & Evidence.............................................................................................................. 1
A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo ............................................................................................................... 2
A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico ............................................................................................ 3
A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil ............................................................................................................. 4
A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws ...................................................................................................... 5
A Bill to Legalize Marijuana .................................................................................................................................. 6
A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act ..................................................................................................... 7
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo ....................................................................................................... 8
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo ....................................................................................................... 9
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo ..................................................................................................... 10
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo .................................................................................................... 11
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo .................................................................................................... 12
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo .................................................................................................... 13
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico .................................................................................. 14
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico .................................................................................. 15
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico .................................................................................. 16
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico ................................................................................. 17
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico ................................................................................. 18
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico ................................................................................. 19
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil ..................................................................................................... 20
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil ..................................................................................................... 21
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil ..................................................................................................... 22
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil ..................................................................................................... 23
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil .................................................................................................... 24
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil .................................................................................................... 25
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil .................................................................................................... 26
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil .................................................................................................... 27
Pro: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws ........................................................................................... 28
Pro: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws ........................................................................................... 29
Con: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws .......................................................................................... 30
Con: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws .......................................................................................... 31
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana............................................................................................................. 32
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana............................................................................................................. 33
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana............................................................................................................. 34
Con: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana ........................................................................................................... 35
Con: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana ........................................................................................................... 36
Pro: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act ............................................................................................ 37
Pro: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act ............................................................................................ 38
Con: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act ........................................................................................... 39
Con: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act ........................................................................................... 40
1/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
1. Whereas, the United States embargo is a fifty year failure and relic of the Cold War; and
2. Whereas, the embargo has failed to fulfill its purpose of inspiring democracy as Fidel Castro and now
3. his brother Raul have maintained control of Cuba during the entire lifetime of the embargo; and
4. Whereas, while the embargo targets Cuba’s oppressive government the real victims are the people of
5. Cuba; and
6. Whereas, the embargo severely restricts access to much needed food, medicine and sanitation leading to
7. decreased quality of life and many deaths ; and
8. Whereas, the Cuban people deserve access to American trade, tourism and cultural exchanges; and
9. Whereas, the American economy would benefit from trade with Cuba; and
10. Whereas, the embargo hurts US international credibility and lifting it would show compassion.
11. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress Assembled that: the United States federal
12. government should end its embargo on Cuba.
2/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
1. Whereas, the United States shares an important border with the nation of Mexico; and
2. Whereas, 3,000 people, 12,000 trucks and 1,200 railcars cross this border each day; and
3. Whereas, this border is crucial for trade which totals over $ 1 billion worth of goods each day; and
4. Whereas, the number of vehicles, people and traded goods that crosses the U.S. – Mexico is expected to
5. grow in the coming years; and
6. Whereas, too little funding has been devoted to making the border point of entry efficient and open,
7. which leads to traffic congestion and delays; and
8. Whereas, delays in trade caused by border congestion hurt the economy by either increasing the costs of
9. consumer prices or reducing profit and jobs.
10. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress Assembled that: the United States federal
11. government should increase its investment in point of entry infrastructure on the U.S. Mexico border.
3/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
1. Whereas, the United States economy requires a free flow of cheap oil to run smoothly; and
2. Whereas, the U.S. cannot produce all of its oil domestically; and
3. Whereas, Venezuela has an abundance of oil; and
4. Whereas, the U.S. and Venezuela have a complicated relationship, but Venezuela is undergoing a
5. leadership transition; and
6. Whereas, Venezuela needs technology and expertise from the U.S. to most cheaply produce its oil; and
7. Whereas, economic engagement between the U.S. and Venezuela is the best way to improve relations;
8. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress Assembled that: the United States federal
9. government should increase its financial investment in Venezuelan oil infrastructure.
4/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws
1. Whereas, law enforcement should be left to professionals; and
2. Whereas, armed and unduly empowered citizens can be a danger; and
3. Whereas, stand your ground laws make it easier for citizens to use deadly force by allowing people to
4. defend themselves without making any effort to evade dangerous situations; and
5. Whereas, stand your ground laws have been proven dangerous by the famous and tragic shooting of
6. Treyvon Martin and subsequent acquittal of the shooter George Zimmerman.
7. Whereas, our laws should simply promote peace not violence.
8. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress Assembled that: the United States federal
9. government should take all legal actions to eliminate stand your ground laws.
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/312317-stand-your-ground-states-not-likely-to-stand-down-
5/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Bill to Legalize Marijuana
BE IT ENACTED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT:
1. Section 1. All federal laws prohibiting the sale or use of marijuana are repealed.
2. Subsection A. Marijuana is legalized for those 18 and older which can be proven with a state or
3. national ID.
4. Subsection B. Marijuana will be sold where tobacco or state legal marijuana is currently sold.
5. Subsection C. Marijuana will be sold in stores that are currently in good standing with the state
6. where they pay taxes.
8. Section 2. All marijuana sales will be taxed federally by 10%. States can impose their own taxes.
9. Section 3. This bill will be overseen by the FDA.
10. Section 4. This bill will be enacted immediately upon passage.
11. Section 5. All conflicting legislation is null and void.
6/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act
1. Whereas, the right to vote is foundational to any citizen in a democracy; and
2. Whereas, America has an ugly history of disenfranchising the voting rights of certain Americans; and
3. Whereas, the Voting Right Act of 1965 was instrumental in providing minorities the equal and
4. unquestioned right to vote; and
5. Whereas, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County (Ala.) v. Holder erased fundamental protections
6. within the Voting Rights Act and opened the floodgates for attacks on voters; and
7. Whereas, in 2013 alone eight states have passed new laws designed to limit voting; and
8. Whereas, voting jurisdictions across the US continue to purge voter rolls, move polling places, and
9. otherwise dilute the rights of voters; and
10. Whereas, new voting restrictions target minority voters under the false promise of fairness; and
11. Whereas, only Congress can restore key elements of the Voting Right Act.
10. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress Assembled that: the United States federal
11. government should restore all elements of the Voting Rights Act.
7/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
Despite small changes, the United States maintains an embargo that bars most economic activity with Cuba.
Guzmán, Emmy award winning journalist, CNN May 8th 2013
(Sandra, “Jay-Z and Beyoncé's trip to Cuba isn't the problem, the embargo is,” CNN, May 8, Online:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/opinion/guzman-beyonce-jay-z-cuba/index.html)
The few but very influential pro-embargo lobby have put a stranglehold on a lucid discussion surrounding Cuba. Five
decades of failed policy later, our nation is being held hostage unable to have a cogent discussion on anything Cubarelated.The U.S. embargo has not and will not work. Put in place in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy, the policy is
stuck in a time warp that has nothing to do with modern-day reality. The most enduring embargo in modern day history is
a remnant of a Cold War past when the Soviet Union was the enemy and the world was on the brink of nuclear war. The
thinking was that financial sanctions, which included a ban on travel by American citizens, would collapse the island
economy and force people to revolt against Fidel Castro.Over the years, these sanctions have been eased or toughened
depending on political winds. In 1992, disgraced New Jersey Rep. Robert Torricelli was behind one the cruelest acts
which banned, among many things, food and medicine sales to Cuba and prevented Cuban-American families from
sending cash to their relatives. These were tough times and seeing many friends and families suffer because they couldn't
visit their elderly mothers more than once every three years, or being prevented from sending them needed supplies, was
very painful. Restrictions have eased under President Barack Obama but there is still a major ban.Enter Jay Z and
Beyoncé.It's 2013 and we need to debate Cuban policy earnestly. Members of Congress must stop the cowardice around
the issue and stop humoring the delusions of passionate folks stuck in the 1960s for political votes and favor. The proembargo folks are ignoring the policy's epic failure and fail to recognize that U.S. policy has played into the hands of the
Castro brothers, who have sinisterly used it to make the case to their people that if Cuba is starving and the island
economy can't grow, it's because of this U.S. policy.
The embargo restricts the flow of medical goods and creates financial strains that threaten to collapse the Cuban
healthcare system.
Xinhua News, 2012
(“Cuban healthcare weakended by U.S. embargo,” 11/28, Online: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/201211/28/c_132004531.htm)
Cuban medical authorities said on Tuesday a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States has severely
undermined the country's healthcare system.Cuban hospitals suffer restrictions in acquiring imported medical
consumables and medicine, advanced medical technology and latest scientific information, officials said.The public
Institute of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery, where thousands of people receive free medical care every year from
international specialists, is financially strained by the embargo."We must find alternatives that sometimes include
purchasing from distant markets, buying from third parties, which means higher prices for these products," said Director
of the institute Dr. Lorenzo Llerena. He added some equipments were simply unattainable, "because they are
manufactured in the United States."The embargo has caused Cuba a loss of more than 200 million dollars in the medical
sector alone by 2011, representing a significant impact on the tiny Caribbean nation, according to official figures. John
Rhodes, a patient, told Xinhua that Cuba had made a great effort for the benefit of all its citizens. "It provides us free
medicine across the country, which is highly expensive around the world," he said, adding "due to the U.S. embargo,
sometimes we do not have all the raw materials and tools to solve certain problems immediately."
8/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
The embargo prevents Cubans, including many children and the elderly, from receiving lifesaving medicine.
Medical Education Cooperation with Cuba: A Review Published 2004
http://www.medicc.org/publications/medicc_review/1104/pages/top_story.html
Since 1961, the US has maintained a full trade embargo against Cuba - the most comprehensive, continuous
economic sanctions leveled against any country in the world. This embargo has included the sale of medicines and
medical equipment, making it an especially harsh policy in humanitarian terms, with ongoing consequences for Cuba's
universal health system. According to the American Association for World Health's (AAWH) Denial of Food and
Medicine: The Impact of the US Embargo on Health & Nutrition in Cuba , "in some instances Cuban physicians have
found it impossible to obtain life-saving medicines from any source, under any circumstances. Patients have died.”
Sadly, many of the patients affected are children, particularly those suffering from cancer, plus other sectors of the
population considered among the most vulnerable including the elderly, pregnant women and the disabled.
The embargo serves as a giant scapegoat that benefits the oppressive government. The Castro’s simply blame all
problems on the US.
Politico.com December 18, 2012 Failing Cuba embargo not going away
After the Soviet Union fell in 1991 that reasoning fell away, but at that time the Cuba lobby in Miami was at its strongest.
Looking at the embargo today (Cuba calls it "the blockade"), its principal accomplishment is that "it has given Fidel
Castro and Ral Castro the perfect scapegoat on which it can blame all their problems," argued Ted Henken, a
fervent Cuba expert at Baruch College in New York. A few days ago, Cuba's Ministry of Education asserted that "the
50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States has severely undermined the country's education efforts."
The embargo has categorically failed – it only functions as a lightning rod that secures Castro’s popularity.
Chicago Tribune 2013
(Steve, “It's Time to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba,” Reason.com, April 15, Online:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba)
The U.S. embargo of Cuba has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight. Fidel Castro's government has somehow
managed to outlast the Soviet Union, Montgomery Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10 American presidents.The boycott
adheres to the stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the existence of a communist
government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is taken as proof of its everlasting
necessity.If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic quarantine has been
either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime.The first would not be surprising, if only because
economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North Korea? Don't make
me laugh.What makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little help in trying to apply the squeeze.
Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search of beaches, nightlife
and Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into submission could work, Cuba
hasn't starved and won't anytime soon.Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the best thing that ever
happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many economic ills. The implacable hostility
of the Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban communism. Even Cubans who don't like
Castro may not relish being told what to do by the superpower next door.
9/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
Lifting the embargo would alleviate Cuban suffering and allow Cubans to focus on the fight for liberty.
Louis Perez, professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010 (Louis, “Want change in
Cuba? End US embargo,” CNN, September 21,
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/20/perez.cuba.embargo/index.html)
But if the administration really wanted to do something in the national interest, it would end the 50-year-old policy of
political and economic isolation of Cuba. The Cuban embargo can no longer even pretend to be plausible. On the
contrary, it has contributed to the very conditions that stifle democracy and human rights there. For 50 years, its brunt has
fallen mainly on the Cuban people. This is not by accident. On the contrary, the embargo was designed to impose
suffering and hunger on Cubans in the hope that they would rise up and overturn their government. "The only foreseeable
means of alienating internal support," the Department of State insisted as early as April 1960, "is through disenchantment
and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship." The United States tightened the screws in the postSoviet years with the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- measures designed, Sen. Robert Torricelli said, "to
wreak havoc on that island." The post-Soviet years were indeed calamitous. Throughout the 1990s, Cubans faced growing
scarcities, deteriorating services and increased rationing. Meeting the needs of ordinary life took extraordinary effort. And
therein lies the problem that still bedevils U.S. policy today. Far from inspiring the Cuban people to revolution, the
embargo keeps them down and distracted. Dire need and urgent want are hardly optimum circumstances for a people to
contemplate the benefits of democracy. A people preoccupied with survival have little interest or inclination to bestir themselves in behalf of anything
else. In Cuba, routine household errands and chores consume overwhelming amounts of time and energy, day after day: hours in lines at the local grocery store or
waiting for public transportation. Cubans in vast numbers choose to emigrate. Others burrow deeper into the black market, struggling to make do and carry on. Many
commit suicide. (Cuba has one of the highest suicide rates in the world; in 2000, the latest year for which we have statistics, it was 16.4 per 100,000 people.) A June
2008 survey in The New York Times reported that less than 10 percent of Cubans identified the lack of political freedom
as the island's main problem. As one Cuban colleague recently suggested to me: "First necessities, later democracy." The
United States should consider a change of policy, one that would offer Cubans relief from the all-consuming ordeal of
daily life. Improved material circumstances would allow Cubans to turn their attention to other aspirations. Ending the
embargo would also imply respect for the Cuban people, an acknowledgment that they have the vision and vitality to
enact needed reforms, and that transition in Cuba, whatever form it may take, is wholly a Cuban affair. A good-faith effort
to engage Cuba, moreover, would counter the common perception there that the United States is a threat to its
sovereignty. It would deny Cuban leaders the chance to use U.S. policy as pretext to limit public debate and stifle dissent - all to the good of democracy and human rights. And it would serve the national interest.
Economic engagement with Cuba is essential to protect their environment and would set a model for sustainable
development in other countries.
Christina Conell, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 2009 (Christina, “The U.S. and Cuba:
Destined to be Environmental Partners,” June 12, Online: http://www.coha.org/the-us-and-cuba-an-environmental-duo/)
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo against the island has resoundingly failed to achieve its purpose. Obama’s modifications
fall short of what it will take to reestablish a constructive U.S.-Cuba relationship. Cuba’s tropical forests, soils, and
maritime areas have suffered degradation as a result of harmful policies stemming from a Soviet-style economic system.
Cuba’s economy could be reinvigorated through expanded tourism, development initiatives and an expansion of
commodity exports, including sugarcane for ethanol. U.S. policy toward Cuba should encourage environmental factors,
thereby strengthening U.S. credibility throughout the hemisphere.An environmental partnership between the U.S. and
Cuba is not only possible, but could result in development models that could serve as an example for environmental
strategies throughout the Americas. The U.S. has the economic resources necessary to aid Cuba in developing effective
policy, while the island provides the space where sustainable systems can be implemented initially instead of being
applied after the fact. Cuba’s extreme lack of development provides an unspoiled arena for the execution of exemplary
sustainable environmental protection practices.
10/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
Cuban health care is exceptional – everyone has access to a doctor and coverage is free.
Edward Campion, M.D. & Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D New England Journal of Medicine, 2013
(Edward & Stephen, “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba” New England Journal of Medicine, Online:
http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/santiagodecuba/nejmp1215226_1.pdf)
Internet access is virtually nonexistent. And the Cuban health care system also seems unreal. There are too many doctors.
Everybody has a family physician. Everything is free, totally free — and not after prior approval or some copay. The
whole system seems turned upside down. It is tightly organized, and the first priority is prevention. Although Cuba has
limited economic resources, its health care system has solved some problems that ours has not yet managed to address.
Family physicians, along with their nurses and other health workers, are responsible for delivering primary care and
preventive services to their panel of patients — about 1000 patients per physician in urban areas. All care delivery is
organized at the local level, and the patients and their caregivers generally live in the same community. The medical
records in cardboard folders are simple and handwritten, not unlike those we used in the United States 50 years ago. But
the system is surprisingly information-rich and focused on population health.
The embargo has always included a medical exemption.
Humberto (Bert) Corzo, graduated from University of Havana with a degree in Civil Engineering, established his
residence in Los Angeles, became a Professional Engineer. Cuba Net 2009 Lift the Embargo
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y09/enero09/23_O_3.html
The United States Government has always exempted from the embargo medicine and humanitarian supplies to the Cuban
people, as long as such aid is distributed by independent non-governmental organizations (NGO) such as the Catholic
Church and international organizations such as Pastors for Peace.
Lifting the embargo will lead to medical tourism which will destroy the Cuban health care system.
Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2010
(Laurie, “Castrocare in Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, 89:4, July/August, EBSCOhost)
Cuba's economic situation has been dire since 1989, when the country lost its Soviet benefactors and its economy
experienced a 35 percent contraction. Today, Cuba's major industries--tourism, nickel mining, tobacco and rum
production, and health care--are fragile. Cubans blame the long-standing U.S. trade embargo for some of these strains and
are wildly optimistic about the transformations that will come once the embargo is lifted. Overlooked in these dreamy
discussions of lifestyle improvements, however, is that Cuba's health-care industry will likely be radically affected by any
serious easing in trade and travel restrictions between the United States and Cuba. If policymakers on both sides of the
Florida Straits do not take great care, the tiny Caribbean nation could swiftly be robbed of its greatest triumph. First, its
public health network could be devastated by an exodus of thousands of well-trained Cuban physicians and nurses.
Second, for-profit U.S. companies could transform the remaining health-care system into a prime destination for medical
tourism from abroad. The very strategies that the Cuban government has employed to develop its system into a major
success story have rendered it ripe for the plucking by the U.S. medical industry and by foreigners eager for affordable,
elective surgeries in a sunny climate. In short, although the U.S. embargo strains Cuba's health-care system and its overall
economy, it may be the better of two bad options.
11/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
Lifting the embargo would turn Cuba into a target for tourists and business exploitation – this would destroy its
environment.
Stefan Lovgren, winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Journalism Award, National
Geographic, 2006
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-castro-legacy.html)
So what will happen if Castro's regime falls and a new, democratic government takes root? Conservationists and others
say they are worried that the pressure to develop the island will increase and Cuba's rich biodiversity will suffer. Barborak
said he is concerned that "environmental carpetbaggers and scalawags will come out of the woodwork in Cuba if there is
turbulent regime change. "One could foresee a flood of extractive industries jockeying for access to mineral and oil
leases," he said. "A huge wave of extraction of unique and endemic plants and animals could occur to feed the
international wildlife market. And a speculative tourism and real estate boom could turn much of the coastline into a tacky
wasteland in short order." "If foreign investments take a much firmer hold, more hotels will be built and more people will
descend on the reefs," added Gebelein, the Florida International University professor. "If the Cuban government does not
have a swift policy framework to deal with the huge influx of tourists, investors, and foreign government interests, a new
exploitative paradigm will be the beginning of the end for some of the last pristine territories in the Caribbean."
Lifting the embargo won’t create change – the Cuban government will still maintain control over profits from
trade, which deters investors.
Jamie Suchlicki, Director of Institute for Cuban Studies at the University of Miami, 2013
(Jaime, “What If…the U.S. Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo?,” Feb 26, Online:
http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/what-if-the-u-s-ended-the-cuba-travel-ban-and-the-embargo/)
In Cuba, foreign investors cannot partner with private Cuban citizens. They can only invest in the island through minority
joint ventures with the government and its state enterprises. The dominant enterprise in the Cuban economy is the Grupo
GAESA, controlled by the Cuban military. Most investments are done through or with GAESA. Therefore, American
companies willing to invest in Cuba will have to partner mostly with the Cuban military. Cuba ranks 176 out of 177
countries in the world in terms of economic freedom. Outshined only by North Korea. It ranks as one of the most
unattractive investments next to Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya, Mali, etc. Foreign investors cannot hire, fire, or pay workers
directly. They must go through the Cuban government employment agency which selects the workers. Investors pay the
government in dollars or euros and the government pays the workers a meager 10% in Cuban pesos. Corruption is
pervasive, undermining equity and respect for the rule of law. Cuba does not have an independent/transparent legal
system. All judges are appointed by the State and all lawyers are licensed by the State. In the last few years, European
investors have had over $1 billion arbitrarily frozen by the government and several investments have been confiscated.
Cuba’s Law 77 allows the State to expropriate foreign-invested assets for reason of “public utility” or “social interest.” In
the last year, the CEOs of three companies with extensive dealings with the Cuban government were arrested without
charges.
12/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to End the Cuban Embargo
Cuba and the US won’t trade – there’s no market in US for Cuban goods and Cuba won’t abandon relationships
with China and Venezuela.
Jaime Suchlicki, Director of Institute for Cuban Studies at the University of Miami, 2013
(Jaime, “What If…the U.S. Ended the Cuba Travel Ban and the Embargo?,” Feb 26, Online:
http://interamericansecuritywatch.com/what-if-the-u-s-ended-the-cuba-travel-ban-and-the-embargo/)
All trade with Cuba is done with state owned businesses. Since Cuba has very little credit and is a major debtor nation, the
U.S. and its businesses would have to provide credits to Cuban enterprises. There is a long history of Cuba defaulting on
loans. Cuba is not likely to buy a substantial amount of products in the U.S. In the past few years, Cuba purchased several
hundred million dollars of food in the U.S. That amount is now down to $170 million per year. Cuba can buy in any other
country and it is not likely to abandon its relationship with China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran to become a major trading
partner of the U.S. Cuba has very little to sell in the U.S. Nickel, one of Cuba’s major exports, is controlled by the
Canadians and exported primarily to Canada. Cuba has decimated its sugar industry and there is no appetite in the U.S. for
more sugar. Cigars and rum are important Cuban exports. Yet, cigar production is mostly committed to the European
market.
Engagement wouldn’t promote change – Castro will use US goods to maintain his control over Cubans.
Jorge, Professor of Political Economy at Florida International University, 2000
(Dr. Antonio, "The U.S. Embargo and the Failure of the Cuban Economy," Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American
Studies Occasional Papers, Online: http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/iccaspapers/28)
Under the real world of Castroism, however, the answer must be a terse one: none. The embargo has not harmed the
Cuban economy. Cooperation between the United States and Cuba would have been impossible from the very beginning
of the Revolution for legal, political, ideological, strategic, and economic reasons, not to mention others of a philosophical
or moral character. In other words, it was in the past, and continues to be at present, contrary to the United States’ national
interest and to its fundamental foreign policy orientation and objectives to lift the embargo under Castro’s conditions: that
is, without a firm commitment to the political democratization and market reforms that his regime has stubbornly opposed
for the last 40 years. However, if, purely for the sake of an intellectual exercise, we were to assume that the embargo had
never existed, its nonexistence would have had no effect whatsoever on the Cuban economy. Castro simply would have
squandered U.S. instead of Soviet resources. Given Castro’s objectives and policies, the ultimate result for the Cuban
economy could not have been any different, regardless of who had financed his Revolution.
The US allowed millions of dollars of medical supplies to be exported to Cuba.
Humberto (Bert) Corzo, graduated from University of Havana with a degree in Civil Engineering, established his
residence in Los Angeles, became a Professional Engineer. Cuba Net 2009 Lift the Embargo
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y09/enero09/23_O_3.html
In the year 2000 the Department of Commerce approved the export to Cuba of approximately $550 million in medicines,
medical equipment, cash remittances, gift parcels and food (cash remittances and gift parcels account for about 75% of the
total amount).
13/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
Growing bottlenecks at US-Mexico points of entry will cause a great slowdown in North American trade.
Kristina Ramos New Democracy Network’s Policy Director 2013 Kristian Ramos is New Democracy Network’s
Policy Director of the 21st Century Border Initiative, “Realizing the Strategic National Value of our Trade, Tourism and
Ports of Entry with Mexico” The New Policy Institute is the educational affiliate of the NDN, a think tank based in
Washington, DC. May 2013 ttp://ndn.org/sites/default/files/blog_files/NPI%20U%20S%20Mexico%20Trade%20Tourism%20POE%20Report_0.pdf
Broad bipartisan agreement has developed on the need to improve our land ports of entry with Mexico. This is because
over seventy percent of NAFTA trade flows through these ports of entry as well as an enormous flow of visitors who have
a major economic impact on the United States. Twenty-three states have Mexico as their number one or number two
trading partner, multiplying jobs in both countries. Significant investments of various types are badly needed for our
shared land ports of entry with Mexico. Greatly increased security at the ports of entry since September 11, 2001 coupled
with inadequate staffing and infrastructure have significantly increased border wait times. And with continued
Congressional gridlock on funding and U.S. Customs and Border Protection projecting a $6 billion shortfall in
infrastructure investment on both our southern and northern borders, we may be headed for a debilitating slowdown in
North American trade. The regional border infrastructure master planning process is a step in the right direction of
formally recognizing the vast bottom-up nature of interaction at the border by thousands of key stakeholders. But this
more inclusive infrastructure planning system has not been met with increased funding for ports of entry staffing or
infrastructure. The North American Development Bank may offer a model for funding border infrastructure projects.
Continued blockages at the border will suffocate both the US and Mexican economies.
Eric Farnsworth, Americas Society/Council of the Americas 2013 Eric Farnsworth heads the Washington office of the
Americas Society/Council of the Americas, “Obama’s Mexico Trip Yielded Progress, Missed Opportunities,” Briefing,
World Politics Review http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12934/obama-s-mexico-trip-yielded-progressmissed-opportunities
The two presidents should also have had more to say about the border, particularly regarding updating and expanding the
infrastructure there that is creaking under the weight of increased trade and tightened security. The border is the windpipe
of U.S.-Mexico trade. If it is blocked, both nations will choke. If it is cleared and expanded, both nations’ economies can
breathe. The U.S.-Mexico energy relationship should also have received much more attention than it did, especially the
export of newly plentiful natural gas from the United States, though this might have opened up both leaders to criticism
about a lack of progress, whether on the transboundary agreement or the pace and scale of energy reform in Mexico.
Increased border efficiency stimulates manufacturing growth in the US
Dr. Shannon O’Neil, Council on Foreign Relations, 2013 Shannon O'Neil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), PhD in Government from Harvard University. Latin America’s Moment
“Economic Change on Mexico’s Horizon” http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/03/26/economic-change-on-mexicos-horizon/
And we’ve already seen a lot of investment, particularly with U.S. manufacturers in Mexico, despite many of the
country’s problems. Many factories in the United States depend on those in Mexico—there are pieces and parts that are
crossing the border every day that allow a company, in the end, to create a globally competitive product. This is already
the reality, but the question going forward is: Can the United States make the most of this and make it even easier for
these companies to grow by facilitating trade with Mexico? Rather than thinking about cutting back this trade, we should
recognize that Mexico helps support U.S. workers because trade grows the overall pie for these companies. A rising tide
on both sides of the border lifts all boats.
14/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
Congestion from the slow border crossing causes economic losses in the billions
Christopher E. Wilson Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars May 2013
Christopher E. Wilson Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where
he develops the Institute’s research and programming on regional economic integration and U.S.-Mexico border affairs.
“A Dividing Line that Unites: The U.S.-Mexico Border” in New Ideas for a New Era: Policy Options for the Next Stage
in U.S.-Mexico Relations Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute Print Edition,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/new_ideas_new_era.pdf
Remarkably, this boom in trade is occurring even though the brake applied to cross-border flows in the wake of 9/11 has
never been fully released. What is more, even though trade is five times greater than it was two decades ago, many border
ports of entry have not experienced major expansion or renovation since they were built several decades ago. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) believes that “federal appropriations have not kept pace with needs,” noting that $6
billion dollars of infrastructure investment are needed to “fully modernize” the land ports of entry along the United States
southern and northern borders, and several studies have found that the U.S. and Mexican economies (not just border
states) are missing out on billions of dollars of potential economic growth due to high levels of congestion at the border.1
Since port of entry improvements offer significant monetary benefits to border communities and trade-dependent
industries, state, local and private entities are often willing to contribute funding to border infrastructure projects. In a time
of tight federal budgets, public-private partnerships and public-public partnerships (involving municipal, state and federal
governments) represent a promising opportunity to meet border infrastructure needs. The combination of growing trade
and aging infrastructure has led to a seemingly contradictory phenomenon. As shown in the chart below, trade has grown
without a corresponding increase in the number of trucks crossing the border. Shippers seem to be finding ways to stuff
more value into fewer trucks as a way to minimize their costly trips across the border. With so much growth happening
despite the obstacles, imagine the potential for job creation and economic growth fueled by increased trade if strategies to
increase efficiency while maintaining or even strengthening security were fully implemented along the border.
Reducing border congestion would decrease illegal immigration to the US.
Bloomberg News May 2013
“Border Delays Cost U.S. $7.8 Billion as Fence Is Focus” By Amanda J. Crawford 5/14/13
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-is-focus.html
Delays at U.S.-Mexico border crossings cost the U.S. economy $7.8 billion in 2011, as improvements have lagged behind
traffic growth and the political focus has been on securing the rest of the border. The toll could balloon to $14.7 billion
annually if the value of U.S.-Mexico truck trade reaches $463 billion by 2020 as predicted, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. As the U.S. Senate debates an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, the focus on fencing and securing
remote stretches of the southern border has overshadowed long-needed improvements in technology, infrastructure and
staffing at the land ports, said Matthew Hummer, a senior transportation analyst for Bloomberg Government. “I think the
most important issue here is stabilizing the two economies, and the ports of entry do that: They facilitate trade and create
job opportunities,” said Hummer, the author of a Bloomberg Government report on the border. “If Mexicans have jobs in
Mexico they are less likely to come to the U.S.” Net Mexican migration dropped to zero from 2005 to 2010, amid
strengthening economic conditions in Mexico, heightened border enforcement and other factors, according to a Pew
Research Center study last year. The Mexican economy has grown at about twice the pace of the U.S. since the end of
2009.
15/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
Border improvements would have a multiplier effect – they could stimulate economic growth across multiple
sectors
Erik Wilson Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies 2013 Erik Lee, Associate
Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at Arizona State University, Christopher E.
Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars “INTRODUCTION”
The State of The Border report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border Border Research Partnership May
2013 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf
Though far from easy to achieve, success in managing the intense interaction and incredible diversity that make up the
border is invaluable. It ripples outward. Of course, the 15 million people that live in the counties and municipalities along
the border benefit enormously when the border is working. So do the 91 million residents of the border states who depend
on the air, water and commerce that flow across the border. But far beyond the border, the six million people throughout
the United States and many millions more in Mexico with jobs supported by bilateral trade depend in a very real way on
the border’s ability to safely facilitate binational flows of people and goods. For them, an efficient border means a steady
job, and an even more efficient border can lead to greater employment opportunities. Indeed, the competitiveness of the
entire North American economy depends on the border. Should major advances in border management take root, the
benefits of a better border have the potential to ripple out even further. Cross-border cooperation could send a signal that
the complex transnational challenges that characterize the 21st century are better met in a context of mutual respect and
shared responsibility than one of conflict and nationalism. Border management is difficult, but it is worth the effort.
Six million jobs depend on border infrastructure improvement.
Shannon O’Neil Senior fellow Latin American Studies Council on Foreign Relations 2013
Shannon O'Neil is Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “U.S. Exports
Depend on Mexico ” Latin America’s Moment January 11 http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2013/01/11/u-s-exports-depend-onmexico/
Surprising to many Americans is the importance of the United States’ trade with Mexico. While Asia captures the
headlines, U.S. exports to Mexico are double those to China, and second only to Canada. And while many of these goods
come from border states—Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California—Mexico matters for much more of the union.
Seventeen states send more than 10 percent of their exports to Mexico , and it is the number one or two destination for
U.S. goods for nearly half the country. The graph below shows those states most economically dependent on our southern
neighbor–notice that South Dakota and Nebraska outpace New Mexico and California. These flows are only accelerating.
During the first ten months of 2012 exports heading south grew by $17 billion dollars (or 10 percent) compared to 2011,
reaching a total of $181 billion. They include petroleum products (some $17 billion worth) and intermediate goods such as
vehicle parts, electrical apparatuses, industrial supplies, metals, and chemicals (over $40 billion combined). Spurred on by
deep supply chains, these pieces and parts move fluidly back and forth across the border (often quite a few times) before
ending up as finished goods on store shelves in both countries. The uptick should be seen as a good thing. According to
economic studies, these exports support some six million American jobs (directly and indirectly). But to continue this
dynamism, the United States and Mexico need to improve border infrastructure and facilitate flows. This means
expanding border crossings and highways, and harmonizing regulations and customs to make the process easier and
faster. Prioritizing and investing in bilateral trade will provide greater opportunity and security–for U.S. companies and
workers alike.
16/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
Mexican has deep economic problems that cannot be fixed by trade and investment.
Ruben Luegngas.com 2013 Aleyda González – Op-ed “The unjustified optimism over Mexico's economy” Entre
Noticias Site is run by multi-awarded Mexican journalist Rubén Luengas website (www.rubenluengas.com) 3/12/13
http://rubenluengas.com/index.php/english-posts/item/97-the-unjustified-optimism-over-mexicos-economy
Apart from the assumed agreement of political consensus, nothing has really changed in Mexico to ensure that today’s
economy has the conditions for it to become a global power. Esquivel scrutinizes a series of elements that only lead
to believe that Mexico’s economy is no different than what it was years ago. In fact he asserts that “a Mexican
worker makes less today per hour of work than he did 30 years ago.” On a 12-year comparison against similar income
level countries, Esquivel proves that Mexico’s GDP has remained the second lowest in Latin America for the past
five years, only above Haiti. The GDP per equivalent adult in 2012 was exactly at the same point it was in 1978
($14,000). Poverty levels have not changed significantly in the past decade, ranging from 53.1 percent (of the total
population) in 1992 to 51.3 in 2010. As Esquivel points out, a change in perception may help attract new investments, but
the reality is Mexico faces a deep structural problem that is not being addressed by the current political
agreements. Therefore, “excessive optimism on the future evolution of the Mexican economy is clearly unjustified.
Most likely, we can expect to continue in a mediocre path in both, the short and the medium terms"
Trade with Mexico hurts US jobs – on balance, job gains from exports are outweighed by lost manufacturing jobs
Robert Scott, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute, EPI 2011
Robert E. Scott, , “Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA, “ May 3, 2011,
http://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_displacement_after_nafta1/
The United States had a small $1.6 billion trade surplus with Mexico in 1993, the year before NAFTA took effect.
By 1997, the United States had developed a $16.6 billion trade deficit with Mexico, which increased to $97.2 billion in
2010, as shown in Table 1. Between 1997 and 2010, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico increased $6.2 billion per year, or
14.6% per year. This paper estimates the impact of that change in trade on employment by calculating the labor content
of changes in the trade balance—the difference between exports and imports. For example, each $1 billion in U.S. auto
parts exported to Mexico supports U.S. jobs, but each $1 billion in autos and trucks imported from Mexico displaces the
workers who would have been making them in the United States. On balance, the net employment effect of trade flows is
determined by changes in the trade balance. Growing trade deficits usually result in job displacement.
The employment impacts of trade deficits are assessed using an input-output model that estimates the direct and indirect
labor requirements of producing output in a given domestic industry. The model includes 202 U.S. industries, 84 of
which are in the manufacturing sector.9 The model estimates the amount of labor (number of jobs) required to produce a
given volume of exports and the labor displaced when a given volume of imports is substituted for domestic output. The
net of these two numbers is the estimated number of jobs displaced by changes in the trade balance, holding all else
equal. U.S. exports to Mexico in 2010 supported 791,900 jobs, but U.S. imports displaced production that would have
supported 1,474,800 jobs, as shown in the bottom half of Table 1. Therefore, the $97.2 billion U.S. trade deficit with
Mexico in 2010 displaced 682,900 jobs.10 Since the United States had a small trade surplus in 1993 (not shown), all of
those jobs were displaced between 1993 and 2010.11 On average, 40,200 jobs have been lost or displaced per year since
NAFTA took effect.12 U.S. jobs displaced by the trade deficit with Mexico are a net drain on employment in traderelated industries, especially those in the manufacturing sector. Even if increased demand in other sectors absorbs all
the workers displaced by trade (an unlikely event), job quality is likely to suffer, as many non-trade-related industries,
such as retail and home health care, pay lower wages and have less comprehensive benefits than trade-related industries.
17/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
There’s no room for major growth in exports to Mexico – they’re already maxed out and competition from Europe
and China
Ted Piccone, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, 2012 Senior fellow and deputy director for foreign policy at the Brookings
Institution “What Would a Romney Victory Mean for Trade With the Region?” http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3117
But it's hard to imagine that Latin America will suddenly become the engine for U.S. exports. We already export
more to the region than to Europe; and twice as much to Mexico as to China. On the downside, our share of the
region's market has declined significantly in the last decade, with China and Europe stepping in with cheap goods
and favorable terms. So while both candidates, not surprisingly, call for expanded trade with the region, neither has a clear diplomatic or political roadmap for achieving
it. Ever since Brazil torpedoed Bill Clinton's vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, the United States has pursued a series of smaller agreements that, while
helpful, leave wide swaths of the region's growing markets (mainly Brazil) up for grabs.
Bureaucratic overlap makes any border policy difficult to coordinate and implement.
Sean Regan Commander, US Coast Guard, Paper for the Naval War College, 2011 Sean Regan Commander, U.S. Coast
Guard NAVAL WAR COLLEGE U.S. – MEXICO POLICY COORDINATION AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
BORDER POLICY COORDINATION EFFORT A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of Joint Military Operations. 2011 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555536.pdf
The Policy Coordination Challenge Bureaucracies on both sides of the border struggle to coordinate policies across
and within various levels of government including federal, state, and local structures. However, the complexity and
interdependence of bi-national issues means there is rarely a clear, single lead department or agency on any given
issue on either side of the border. Complicating coordination efforts are the various and often duplicative authorities held
by many U.S. and GoM institutions. In addition, the various bi-national interactions at the federal, state, and local
levels are often not apparent to the other levels of government. The different government stakeholders often
address issues directly and indirectly through bi-lateral institutions, commissions, and agreements.7 The failure to
coordinate efforts results in disjointed border policies and activities leading to increased levels of congestion, delay,
higher border-crossing costs, and insufficient infrastructure planning. One example of a disjointed effort can be
found at coordination related to the establishment and management of land ports of entry (POEs).8 The United
States and Mexico have over seven federal departments within each national-level structure with POE-related
responsibilities.9
Infrastructure improvements aren’t sufficient – new staffing is needed
Jose D. Gonzalez Chairman of the Board Laredo Licensed U.S. Customs Broker Association May 1, 2012 Use of
Technology to Facilitate Trade and Enhance Security at our Ports of Entry Before the 112th Congress Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security U.S. House of Representatives
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony-Gonzalez.pdf
CBP Officers at the Port of Laredo do an incredible job of keeping our country safe. I had an opportunity to go behind the
scenes and get an introduction into the training and technology that CBP Officers' utilize to do their job effectively and
efficiently when I participated in the inaugural eight week CBP Field Operations Citizens Academy last year and I was
thoroughly impressed at how much CBP Officers do and how quickly they do it. Searching for alternatives to reduce
delays while increasing security at the Port of Laredo for commercial traffic is not an easy task. Regardless of how well
CBP Officers are doing given their resources, I believe that there is always an opportunity to improve - especially with
additional funding for technology and personnel. ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES ADDITIONAL
PERSONNEL In May 2011, seven new primary inspection booths for commercial traffic were opened, nearly doubling
the capacity at the World Trade Bridge. With a total of 15 primary inspection booths and improvements to the secondary
express and exit gate areas, the World Trade Bridge has the infrastructure to handle a record number of shipments. The
improvements to the infrastructure can only be fully utilized with additional CBP Officers. Additional personnel are
needed now because northbound traffic currently peaks between about 9 am to nearly 4pm every day during the week.
18/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Increase Point of Entry with Mexico
Increased truck traffic at the border massively increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Erik Lee Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute 2009 Transportation infrastructure and competitiveness (revision July 1,
2009) Report prepared for the Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute and El Colegio de la Frontera Norte research project, “The
U.S.-Mexico Border: A Discussion on Sub-National Policy Options” By Stephen Blank and Erik Lee
Environmental concerns along the US-Mexico border since the signing of NAFTA focused mainly on water pollution,
industrial waste, chemical degradation and so on. But the critical issue now is climate change. The border – border
crossings and trade corridors in particular – is a major source of green house gas (GHG) emissions. Increasing pressure to
mitigate GHG emissions at border crossings and trade corridors will be a major shaping factor on border policy and could
become a significant force in “thinning” the border. Trucks accounted for much the largest share of the greatly expanded
flow of goods moving across North America’s internal borders in the 1980s and ‘90s. Rail traffic increased substantially
as well, but the modal balance between rail and truck – 30% by rail and 70% by truck – did not change. The number of
commercial trucks on US highways (most powered by diesel engines) increased by nearly 40% between 1980 and 2002.4
(This is US data. The Mexican modal balance in freight transport tips even more toward trucks.) The growth in truck
transport has led to a less environmentally-friendly environment.5 Road transport is a heavy user of energy and a heavy
generator of emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matters (PM), increasing environmental pressures already
associated with combustion. Most forms of transport have a large carbon footprint as well.6 Because NAFTA truck traffic
has been concentrated at border regions and along trade corridors, increasing pressure has been put on infrastructure
capacity particularly at border crossings and on the environment.
Free trade is premised upon a biased ideology that forcibly integrates the world into the global economy – this causes wage
differentials and stratifies the world along a global rich and poor divide
De Angelis, lecturer in Political Economy at University of East London, July 2000 [Massimo, Trade, the global factory and the
struggles for new commons, Paper at the CSE conference "Global Capital and Global Struggles: Strategies, Alliances, & Alternatives
There is no such as thing as "faire" trade liberalisation. To the billion of people in the global economy, trade liberalisation is part of
the project to impose upon them the discipline of the global factory. This discipline is the competing game itself. Whether is
Pakistan’s textiles that replaces Italian’ textile workers or a British telecommunication firm that make Thailand's telecom workers
redundant, it is the game itself that sucks. Whatever gains some group of workers obtain due to their competitive advantage, some
other group of workers loses out, until they themselves are forced to take notice of a new competitive force which came to displace
them. And if we patently follow the economists’ advice to wait for the long-term positive effect of trade, we are left to wonder: isn’t it
now the long term of 200 hundreds yeas ago, of 100 years ago, of 50, 40 years ago, of twenty years ago? The people who died as
result of the new enclosures accompanying trade liberalisation in all these years, the people who suffered war as result of the
disintegration of the social fabric brought about by structural adjustment and associated export promotion, the people of any country
of the North has to run in the competing rat race no less, but even more than in the past, just to acquire what is on average necessary to
live with dignity, the average people struggling to overcome an imposed condition of scarcity when in fact we live in plenty, can we
say these people have benefited of the long term advantage of trade? Nonsense, nobody can make these sorts of judgements. Without a
proper assessment of human, social and environmental costs of modern trade, one cannot even to start talking about long term or short
term advantages of trade. Without taking into consideration the voice of those without voice the rhetoric of trade benefits is a bias
rhetoric. If there is no way anybody can argue whether trade has brought advantages or disadvantages, the only thing we can say with certainty is that because of
current patterns of trade the context in which our lives and struggles of today are located is different than the context of our lives and struggles of yesterday and, if trade
liberalisation continues, of tomorrow. However, the recomposing factors of various movement in Seattle last November, can be summarised by the slogan “no new
round, WTO turnaround.” With this slogan the movement sets against the boundlessness of capital’s accumulation, but there is more. “No new round”, all movements
agree. "WTO turnaround”, here is the problem, because people start to ask and debate “where to?” The problem for us is to identify, in the context of the large
movement emerged in Seattle and that has set a temporary limit to trade liberalisation, whether it is possible to start to promote a debate towards an independent
position of planetary civil society, one that does not bow to the easy traps of the free trade ideology. To do so, we must open a debate on the
contradictory nature of trade in this phase of capitalist accumulation, its meaning and implications for a diverse organisation of human
and natural resources of the planet. To gain an independent position of planetary civil society, we must start to think about proposals
of transformation of current society within a conceptual grid that is independent from the main current dogmas that sustain capital's
discourse: competition and, especially, the meaning of growth.
19/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Venezuelan oil production is collapsing and could lead to oil shocks and price increases. They desperately need
outside investors.
Center for Strategic and International Studies 2013. Sarah Ladislaw, co-director and senior fellow with the Energy and
National Security Program at CSIS, and Frank Verrastro, senior vice president and James R. Schlesinger Chair for Energy
and Geopolitics at CSIS, March 6, " Post-Chavez Outlook for Venezuelan Oil Production http://csis.org/publication/postchavez-outlook-venezuelan-oil-production)
The winds of change are once again blowing in Venezuela. The recent announcement of Hugo Chavez’s passing has
opened up a host of questions about the future leadership of Venezuela and the potential impact this leadership transition
could have on Venezuelan oil production and global oil markets. Venezuela is one of the largest oil and natural gas
resource holders in the world. It is among the world’s largest oil producers (13th) and exporters (10th) and has
historically been one of the United States’ largest sources of oil imports (4th behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and
Mexico). Ever since the failed coup and the subsequent strike that brought about a short collapse in oil production in
2002, followed by nationalization of the oil sector, onlookers have been waiting for indications that the regime’s approach
to energy production would either fail once and for all or that some political change would bring about reform and
rejuvenation of the energy sector. A political transition in Venezuela is now upon us but how it evolves could mean a lot
for the energy sector and global energy markets. Despite its enormous oil resources, Venezuela's oil production
(regardless of whose figures you use) has long been in steady decline. In 2011 liquids production was 2.47 million
barrels per day (mmbd) , down a million barrels per day since 1999. Some of this is reflects the changing cost and
economics of Venezuelan oil production but field decline is significant and expertise and reinvestment are questionable
and looking harder to come by. The internal technical and managerial capabilities of state run oil and gas company
PDVSA have deteriorated since the 2002 strike and aftermath. Increasingly, PDVSA relies on contractors, as well as other
private company partners, to keep the fields in production but reports state that contractors have not been paid in months
and that the political uncertainty in the country has even driven routine decision making to a halt. The sustained political
uncertainty has also slowed investment; Russian and Indian companies were planning to invest in Venezuela's oil
fields but so far have withheld incremental new money. China has not announced a new line of credit or extensions on
its development-linked financing since last April. At the same time that production is dropping, highly subsidized
domestic consumption of oil is increasing while revenue from exports is also declining. The United States remains the
largest recipient of Venezuelan oil exports at 950,000 barrels per day in 2011, roughly 40 percent, plus another 185,000
barrels per day from the Caribbean that was Venezuelan sourced but those volumes area down as U.S. demand has
declined and other crudes have become available. Venezuela's next largest export destinations are the Caribbean (31
percent) and then China (around 10 percent). Venezuela sells to many of its Caribbean neighbors at below market rates
due to extremely preferential financing relationships, including additional heavy subsidies for Cuban exports. All of this
culminates in an outlook for continued decline in oil production and a worsening economic outlook for Venezuela during
a politically difficult time. However, conventional wisdom argues that maintaining oil production is in the interest of any
regime. Revenue from oil production is such a large part of Venezuela’s government balance sheet that no leadership
could survive for long without a sustained cash flow that oil exports bring. The converse of this argument is that
revenues generated by the energy sector are such an important source of power and influence in Venezuela that there is
potential for infighting over control of the sector. Moreover, the potential for strikes or instability among groups involved
in the sector (some of whom have not been paid) could have additional negative impacts on production. While oil markets
have so far taken the news of Chavez’s demise in stride (many claim because the news was largely expected, others
because the political outcome is still so uncertain) an actual disruption in Venezuelan production could add pressure to
an already difficult market outlook. The last year has produced a number of supply disruptions around the world from
OPEC, the Middle East North Africa region, as well as non-OPEC sources. If the economic outlook continues to improve
and yield an increase global energy demand, if Iran sanctions remain in place, and if Venezuelan production be
compromised, then oil prices would experience much more significant upside pressure from any new disruptions.
20/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
A Venezuelan oil collapse would cause significant oil shocks.
Mark Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs 2013(Mark, Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the
Congressional Research Service, January 10, "Venezuela: Issues for Congress",
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40938.pdf)
Despite notable frictions in bilateral relations, Venezuela has continued to be a major supplier of oil to the United States.
On numerous past occasions, however, Chávez threatened to stop selling oil to the United States, although Venezuelan
officials maintained that Venezuela would only stop sending oil to the United States if attacked by the United States.
Because of Chávez’s strong rhetoric, however, some observers raised questions about the security of Venezuela as a major
supplier of foreign oil. In June 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report, requested by thenSenate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, on the issue of potential Venezuelan oil supply disruption.
At the time, the GAO report concluded that a sudden loss of all or most Venezuelan oil from the world market could raise
world prices up to $11 per barrel and decrease U.S. gross domestic product by about $23 billion. 116
Venezuela needs foreign investment to generate more oil production and the U.S. has the best refineries.
New York Times 2013 Clifford Krauss, March 8, "Dwindling Production Has Led to Lesser Role for Venezuela as Major
Oil Power", http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/world/americas/venezuelas-role-as-oil-power-diminished.html?_r=0)
Venezuela’s annual oil production has declined since Mr. Chávez took office in 1999 by roughly a quarter, and oil exports
have dropped by nearly a half, a major economic threat to a country that depends on oil for 95 percent of its exports and
45 percent of its federal budget revenues. “Venezuela’s clout on OPEC and on world oil prices has been greatly
diminished because of its inability to exploit its enormous resources,” said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy
and Economic Research, a consultancy. “In the 1990s, their production was booming and they could thumb their nose at
Saudi Arabia and get away with it, but now they have become OPEC’s poor cousin.” In a fundamental geopolitical turn,
Venezuela now relies far more on the United States than the United States relies on Venezuela. Venezuela depends on the
United States to buy 40 percent of its exports because Gulf of Mexico refineries were designed to process low-quality
Venezuelan and Mexican crudes that most refineries around the world cannot easily handle. But in recent years, the
United States has been replacing its imports of Latin American crudes with oil from Canadian oil sands fields, which is similarly
heavy. American imports of Venezuelan oil have declined to just under a million barrels a day, from 1.7 million barrels a day in 1997, according to the Energy
Department. And while Venezuelan exports of oil are in decline, its dependency on American refineries for refined petroleum products has grown to nearly 200,000
barrels a day because of several recent Venezuelan refinery accidents. Experts expect Venezuela to send barrels no longer needed in the United States to China, as
payments in kind under oil-for-loans contracts. Venezuela’s broken refinery sector has left shortages of gasoline and diesel in parts of Latin America, opening the door
for valuable markets to American refiners. Over his 14 years in power, Mr. Chávez relied heavily on oil revenues to finance his social
programs. Energy experts say his gasoline subsidies doubled domestic consumption, cutting deeply into exports, but that
his hostility to foreign investment and mismanagement of the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela were the primary
reasons for the steep decline in production. A strike and the firing of management talent and 20,000 workers at the oil
company in 2002 led to a steep decline in the company, which has been underscored by the refinery accidents. “Venezuela
is a fraction of what it used to be,” said Sadad Ibrahim al-Husseini, a former head of Saudi Aramco’s exploration and production division, “and that’s really because
Venezuela’s technocrats have scattered over the world and are no longer active in Venezuela.” Mr. Chávez further overhauled oil exploration and production with a
nationalization program in 2006 that ordered a renegotiation of contracts with foreign companies, mandating that Venezuela’s oil company get a minimum 60 percent
share in all production projects. Sixteen foreign companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, went along with the new rules, while Exxon Mobil, Conoco
Philips and other companies resisted, and their holdings were nationalized. Venezuela has huge reserves, including its Orinoco heavy
oil belt, which the United States Geological Survey estimates to have 513 billion barrels of recoverable oil — enough
potentially to make Venezuela one of the top three world producers. But foreign oil companies have been wary of
investing.
21/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
US eexpertise is key to solving the problems in the Venezuelan oil sector
IPS News 2013 “Analysts Say Oil Could Help Mend U.S.-Venezuela Relation,” 6/17/2013,
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/06/analysts-say-oil-could-help-mend-u-s-venezuela-relations/)
Venezuela’s oil industry has been officially nationalised since the 1970s, and, as president, Chavez further tightened
government control over its production. His government took a greater chunk of revenues and imposed quotas that
ensured a certain percentage would always go directly towards aiding Venezuelans via social spending and fuel subsidies.
While these measures may be popular with Venezuelans, who pay the lowest price for gasoline in the world, critics argue
such policies hampered growth and led to mismanagement of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), the main state-run
oil company. The same critics also point to increasing debt levels, slowdowns in productions and accidents stemming
from faulty infrastructure. In order to boost production, PdVSA agreed in May to accept a number of major loans. This
includes one from Chevron, one of the largest U.S. oil companies, which will work with Venezuelans to develop new
extraction sites. “The oil sector is in deep trouble in Venezuela – production is down and the economic situation is
deteriorating,” explained Shifter. “They know they need foreign investment to increase production, and this is in part what
has motivated Maduro to reach out.” If its economy continues to falter, Venezuela may be further tempted to embrace the
United States, which has the largest, most sophisticated fossil fuel industry in the world. Kerry’s recent words suggest that
the administration of President Barack Obama would be waiting with open arms.
Venezuela’s political transition makes now a key time for US oil investment
Kevin Clarke US Catholic Magazine 3-25-13 [Kevin, MA in International Studies from DePaul University in Chicago,
senior editor for U.S. Catholic Magazine, “Chavez Death Brings New Chance For U.S.-Venezuela Engagement,”
http://americamagazine.org/issue/chavez-death-brings-new-chance-us-venezuela-engagement]
The passing of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela unleashed an epic outpouring of grief among his supporters in
Venezuela, the likes of which may only be eventually paralleled with the passing of another larger-than-life figure in Latin
American socialism, Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Matthew Carnes, S.J., assistant professor of government at Georgetown
University, said Chávez will be remembered as a leader who had an “outsized impact in Venezuelan politics.” Father
Carnes said Chávez’s passing offers an opportunity for the United States, politically and economically, to revive its
relationship with Venezuela. Occasionally “capricious and doctrinaire,” Chávez was “someone the United States had a
hard time negotiating with,” according to Father Carnes. Whether his designated political heir, Vice President Nicholas
Maduro, or an opposition candidate, most likely Henrique Capriles Radonski, governor of the Venezuelan state of
Miranda, is elected to replace Chávez, Father Carnes expects a more pragmatic and less confrontational leadership to
emerge. That could mean improved ties not just with Venezuela but throughout the region, he said, and a possible opening
for renewed U.S. investment and partnership with the Venezuelan state oil industry. Despite Chávez’s notorious distaste
for U.S. political leaders, under his leadership Venezuela remained one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States.
This is likely to continue.
22/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Venezuelan oil investment is key to the industry and regional stability
Tom Gjelten, Peabody winning journalist, NPR 4-11-13 [Tom, Peabody Award-winning journalist for NPR, has over
two decades of experience in political investigative reporting, “Venezuela's Next Leader Faces Tough Choice On Oil
Program,” http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176843567/venezuela-s-next-leader-faces-tough-choice-on-oil-program]
Oil production in Venezuela declined sharply under the Chavez administration, however, largely due to inadequate
investment in the energy infrastructure, inefficiencies in oil industry management, and the replacement of skilled oil
technicians and managers with political loyalists. PetroCaribe Initiative The drop in oil production — more than 7 percent
just in the first quarter of 2013 — is severe enough to call into question whether the Chavista oil welfare programs can be
sustained. For the Caribbean and Latin American countries that have been benefiting from the PetroCaribe program, it is a
time of great anxiety. Chavez saw the energy alliance as a way to free the member states from U.S. energy imperialism.
"There's no one who can slow our ever-faster march toward our great historical goals," he said, defining PetroCaribe as
"energy unity." For poor countries, the PetroCaribe deal was irresistible. Typically, they had to pay cash for only half the
oil they received. The rest they got on credit, financed over 25 years at 1 percent. Among those who eagerly signed up for
the program was Haiti. "Any country that would benefit from such a credit would take advantage of it," says René JeanJumeau, Haiti's minister of energy. "There's not even a need to justify this. Haiti is a struggling economy, and this is a
great advantage for us. We consider it extremely important." In the Dominican Republic, PetroCaribe was key to the
country's 2008-2009 financial stabilization program. "By allowing us to defer the oil payments, it was a big, big thing for
the government," says Juan Carlos Russo of the Pontificia Universidad Católica in Santo Domingo. To be sure, there were
strings attached: Chavez wanted the PetroCaribe countries to support his ideological crusade against the U.S. Some did so
enthusiastically. Others largely ignored the Chavista rhetoric. "A lot of these countries looked at this thing in a practical
manner," says Jeremy Martin, director of the energy program for the Institute of the Americas at the University of
California, San Diego. "They were able to stomach the ideology as long as they could get such a wonderful financial
deal." For countries such as Haiti, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, the cheap oil from Venezuela could not have
come at a better time, with energy prices rising and the world economy in crisis. "Most of these countries have no
domestic supplies of oil and gas," Martin notes. "If they do, it's minimal. These are energy-starved countries. And so they
became absolutely addicted [to the PetroCaribe program]." What Does Venezuela Get? But whether the deal is good for
Venezuela is another question. "In my economic mind, I would say, 'Why are they willing to sacrifice this much?' " says
Russo. The Dominican Republic is repaying its oil debt to Venezuela partly in string beans. Jorge Piñon, who previously
worked in Latin America for the Amoco and Shell companies, notes that all the oil that Venezuela provides on easy credit
terms to other countries could have been sold for cash on the global market. "To Venezuela, from a cash-flow point of
view, this represents close to $5 billion a year of revenue that they're missing," Piñon says. The state-owned oil company
Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. also donated oil to low-income families in the United States. There were the oil subsidies for
Cuba. Plus, there's all the oil that goes for cheap gasoline for Venezuelan drivers. "In reality, PDVSA makes money from
only a small proportion of the oil it produces," says independent energy economist Roger Tissot, who specializes in the
Latin American energy market. "Now, can that continue? I don't think so." Venezuela's problem is that its oil production
is declining, in part because of the lack of reinvestment and the politicization of PDVSA operations under the Chavez
government. Unless oil prices move sharply higher, the country will face a significant loss of oil revenue.
23/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Venezuela’s constitution bans foreign oil investment
John Coggin Senior Editor for International Policy Digest, May 2011 [John, Senior Editor for International Policy
Digest, “Venezuela’s Oil Sword,” May 26, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2011/05/26/venezuelas-oil-sword/]
It’s the uncertain quantity and quality of Venezuela’s oil reserves that keep U.S. foreign policy analysts and energy
forecasters up at night. Like Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, PDVSA operates behind a cloak of secrecy. The
Venezuelan constitution strictly forbids foreign investment in upstream oil activities. U.S. oil companies ExxonMobil and
ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 due to nationalization reforms.
Venezuelan companies can’t turn a profit, even with investment
Forbes Magazine 3-5-13 [Christopher Helman, Forbes, “What Does Chavez's Death Mean For Venezuelan Oil Giant
Pdvsa?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/05/what-does-chavez-death-mean-for-venezuelan-oilgiant-pdvsa/]
In desperation, earlier this year, Chavez, through Pdvsa, sought to land $6 billion in loans from China Development Bank
($4 billion) and Chevron ($2 billion). The Chevron cash was supposedly earmarked for the company’s Petroboscan joint
venture. The U.S. oil giant had previously loaned Pdvsa billions. But Chavez’s biggest enabler was China. Beijing over
the past decade has shown a willingness to prop up Chavez –more out of a desire for cheap oil than any kind of socialist
objectives (Venezuela could only dream of having economic planners as competent as China’s). Venezuela has been
repaying China’s $36 billion in loans with oil, not cash. By last September the financial situation at Pdvsa had gotten so
dire that the company was paying service providers with IOUs. So what’s going to happen to Pdvsa under Chavez’s heir
Nicolas Maduro? Probably more of the same. Maduro last month showed that he is likely to be little more than a chip off
of Chavez’s block when he announced that Pdvsa would “annex” the share of oilfields owned by privately held
Suelopetrol. Whatever happens next, we can be sure that unless Maduro turns out to have the same charisma-driven cult
of personality that Chavez managed, Venezuela’s partners, especially China, will be increasingly unwilling to take the
role of “pendejo” (sucker). The oil industry has been waiting patiently for Chavez to die with the hope that whoever came
next would be more interested in building value rather than destroying it.
Venezuelan oil shocks don’t cause global price shocks
CNBC 3-5-13 [Sri Jegarajah, Market reporter for CNBC Asia Pacific, “Venezuela—The Next Risk for Oil Markets,”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100520892]
Meanwhile, a former executive at PDVSA told CNBC that Venezuela has lost its ability to influence global oil markets
because years of under investment in the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) member's petroleum
industry has constrained production. "Venezuela is a weak OPEC hawk, as it has no sufficient production to influence
prices," said Gustavo Coronel, a founding member of the board of state-oil firm Petroleos de Venezuela. "Venezuela is no
longer a factor that can really upset the markets as it was the case 20 years ago." Furthermore, the energy boom in the U.S.
has helped cut dependence of Venezuelan net crude and oil products and exports to the U.S. have dropped to levels last
seen nearly 30 years ago. "The U.S. would not miss Venezuelan oil very much," Coronel said. "Whatever disruption
would be almost entirely psychologically induced."
24/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Oil investment can’t solve relations- anti-Americanism is entrenched
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University 3-7-13 [ “Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, “Why post-Chavez Venezuela won’t be a U.S. ally anytime soon,”
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/07/why_post_chavez_venezeula_wont_be_a_us_ally_anytime_soon]
So, with Chavez's passing, it would seem like a no-brainer for his successor to tamp down hostility with the United States.
After all, Chavez's "Bolivarian" foreign policy was rather expensive -- energy subsidies to Cuba alone were equal to U.S.
foreign aid to Israel, for example. With U.S. oil multinationals looking hopefully at Venezuela and Caracas in desperate
need of foreign investment, could Chavez's successor re-align foreign relations closer to the U.S.A.? I'm not betting on it,
however, for one simple reason: Venezuela might be the most primed country in the world for anti-American conspiracy
theories. International relations theory doesn't talk a lot about conspiracy thinking, but I've read up a bit on it, and I'd say
post-Chavez Venezuela is the perfect breeding ground. Indeed, the day of Chavez's death his vice president/anointed
successor was already accusing the United States of giving Chavez his cancer. Besides that, here's a recipe for creating a
political climate that is just itching to believe any wild-ass theory involving a malevolent United States: 1) Pick a country
that possesses very high levels of national self-regard. 2) Make sure that the country's economic performance fails to
match expectations. 3) Create political institutions within the country that are semi-authoritarian or authoritarian. 4)
Select a nation with a past history of U.S. interventions in the domestic body politic. 5) Have the United States play a
minor supporting role in a recent coup attempt. 6) Make sure the United States is closely allied with the enduring rival of
the country in question. 7) Inculcate a long history of accusations of nutty, American-led conspiracies from the political
elite. 8) Finally, create a political transition in which the new leader is desperate to appropriate any popular tropes used
by the previous leader. Venezuela is the perfect breeding ground for populist, anti-American conspiracy theories. And
once a conspiratorial, anti-American culture is fomented, it sets like concrete. Only genuine political reform in Venezuela
will cure it, and I don't expect that anytime soon.
They use oil revenue to counterbalance the US
Keith Crane, Director Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program, ISE RAND Corporation 2009
(Keith Crane, Director Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program, ISE RAND Corporation, Andreas
Goldthau, Michael Toman, Thomas Light, Stuart E. Johnson, Alireza Nader, Angel Rabasa, Harun Dogo, “Imported Oil
and U.S. National Security,” RAND, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf)
The Venezuelan government relied on revenues from oil for 53 percent of gov- ernment revenues in 2006 (Figure 4.3). In
current dollars, government revenues from oil have risen from $5.3 billion in 1998, the bottom of the oil bust in the 1990s,
to $29.3 billion in 2006. Revenues surged again in 2007 and the first half of 2008, but the Venezuelan government has
had to sharply cut spending in 2009 as oil prices have plummeted. Oil Exports and Venezuela’s Policies Contrary to U.S.
Interests. Venezuela’s presi- dent, Hugo Chavez, has used some of these revenues to consolidate his political base, expand
Venezuela’s influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, and build up Venezuela’s military forces. Chavez has
also attempted to create coalitions of coun- tries to counterbalance U.S. international influence—most notably, with Iran
but also, less successfully, with China and Russia.
25/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Venezuela’s over reliance on oil hurts the economy
Sciencedirect.com 2011 [Universidad de Granada, May 2011/ article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1514032611600056]
Venezuela's growth experience over the 56-year period from 1950 to 2006 was characterized by a high economic growth
rate from 1950 to 1974 and a low economic growth rate from 1974 to 2006. We show that the country has been immersed
in a ‘great depression’ since the mid-seventies. We also show that although Venezuela is an oil abundant economy, this
growth experience is largely due to the evolution of its non-oil GDP. We perform a growth accounting exercise to
quantify the extent to which the growth experience in the non-oil sector is a result of physical capital accumulation,
finding that non-oil sector behavior can largely be explained by the evolution of total factor productivity (TFP). Finally,
we calculate the correlations between oil rents and physical capital accumulation and TFP in the non-oil sector, finding a
high positive correlation during the good performance period, but a negative correlation in the implosion period.
The United States isn’t going to make any progress with Venezuelan oil.
Dallas News Business 2013 (Jim Landers of Dallas News Business, “Crumbling Venezuelan oil sector expected to
remain hostile to U.S. investment,” March 7, 2013, Dallas News, http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20130306crumbling-venezuelan-oil-sector-expected-to-remain-hostile-to-u.s.-investment.ece
Venezuela has more oil reserves than any other country thanks to massive deposits of asphalt-like crude in what’s called
the Orinoco oil belt. Development of these deposits is both technology- and capital-intensive. Chávez’s push for more
national control over the oil sector in 2007 led Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips Co. to abandon big Orinoco
projects. Other international companies stayed, including firms from Russia, China and Vietnam, and the Orinoco now
accounts for about 20 percent of Venezuela’s oil production. Mark McNabb, director of the Emerging Markets Research
Center at UTD’s Naveen Jindal School of Management, said in a phone interview that he expects U.S. firms will remain
on the outside looking in. “We’re kind of frozen out for the next three to five years,” he said.
An increase in Venezuelan oil money will be used to sponsor terrorism against the US.
Ray Walser PHD Heritage Foundation 2010 (PhD. From UNC-Chapel Hill; Senior Policy Analyst specializing in Latin
America at The Heritage Foundation) “State Sponsors of Terrorism: Time to Add Venezuela to the List” The Heritage
Foundation January 20, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/state-sponsors-of-terrorism-time-to-addvenezuela-to-the-list
Since January 2009, the Obama Administration's attempts to improve relations with the stridently anti-America Chávez
have yielded little more than empty gestures. Although ambassadorial relations were restored in June 2009, Chávez has
signaled renewed support for the narcoterrorism of the FARC, begun threatening and punishing Colombia for its defense
cooperation agreement with the U.S., helped destabilize Honduras by backing former president Manuel Zelaya's illegal
referendum, pushed ahead with major Russian arms acquisitions, and sealed ever closer ties, including joint nuclear
ventures, with Iran. Venezuela plays an increasingly prominent role as a primary transit country for cocaine flowing from
Colombia to the U.S., Europe, and West Africa. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration, according to the President's National Security Council adviser on
Latin America, Dan Restrepo, does not consider Venezuela to be a challenge to U.S. national security: President Obama "does not see Venezuela as a challenge to U.S.
national security. There is no Cold War nor Hot War. Those things belong to the past."[2] This view is not optimistic--it is dangerous. The Administration needs to, as a
recent bipartisan congressional resolution urges, adopt a genuinely tough-minded approach to dealing with Chávez and Venezuela. The Administration needs to develop
a public diplomacy strategy to counter Chavista disinformation and a diplomatic strategy in the Americas that responds to growing threats of political destabilization. It
also needs to recognize that under Chávez, Venezuela has become terrorism's most prominent supporter in the Western
Hemisphere. The Obama Administration can begin to correct this policy of drift and inaction by placing Venezuela on the
list of state sponsors of terrorism along with Iran.
26/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Invest in Venezuelan Oil
Venezuela oil revenues destroy democracy and destabilize Latin America.
Keith Crane, Director Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program, ISE RAND Corporation, 2009
(Keith Crane, Director Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program, ISE RAND Corporation, Andreas
Goldthau, Michael Toman, Thomas Light, Stuart E. Johnson, Alireza Nader, Angel Rabasa, Harun Dogo, “Imported Oil
and U.S. National Security,” RAND, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf)
Implications for U.S. Security. Revenues from oil exports have enabled Chavez to pursue a number of policies that run
counter to U.S. goals to create stable, peace- ful, economically dynamic democracies in Latin America. Within Venezuela,
he has attempted to concentrate political power in the presidency, undercutting checks and balances. Higher oil revenues
permitted him to provide subsidies to his core constitu- encies, shoring up domestic political support. He has pursued
economic policies, and encouraged other countries to do so as well, that retard economic growth and burden government
finances. The decline in oil prices in the second half of 2008 is already straining the budget. The Venezuelan government
is in the process of reducing some subsidies and devaluing the currency so as to restore fiscal balance. Chavez has
provided campaign financing for presidential candidates in other countries in Latin America who also oppose U.S.
policies. Most of these candidates have won recent elections. He has been an irritant to the United States in interna- tional
forums, such as the United Nations. He has boosted military spending. He has also provided support for groups, such as
FARC, that seek to overthrow neighboring governments.
Venezuelan energy revenue dependence wrecks their economy and causes war.
The New Yorker March 2013 (John Cassidy, March 6, 2013, “VENEZUELA’S “RESOURCE CURSE” WILL
OUTLIVE HUGO CHÁVEZ,” The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/03/venezuela-resource-curse-will-outlive-hugo-chavez.html)
Rather than generating peace and prosperity, the presence of mineral and oil wealth in countries that have been poor often
leads to political conflict, corruption, and, in extreme cases, civil war. While Venezuela remains a very divided country, it
didn’t fall to those depths. But with some estimates now showing Venezuela harboring bigger oil reserves than Saudi
Arabia, the question of how to manage its immensely valuable natural resources may well cause even more intense
conflict in the years ahead. As for Chávez’s socialist experiment, there’s little consensus on how it fared. Reflecting the
views of Washington’s economic-development establishment and Venezuela’s large émigré population, Moses Naim, a
Venezuelan who served as trade and industry minister during the early nineteen nineties, and who is now at the Carnegie
Endowment, argued at Businessweek.com that Chávez left behind “an economy in shambles … [with] one of the world’s
largest fiscal deficits, highest inflation rates, worst misalignment of the exchange rate, fastest-growing debt, and one of the
most precipitous drops in productive capacity—including that of the critical oil sector.” But Chávez had his defenders.
Writing for Salon, David Sirota pointed to the fall in poverty rates under his rule, along with a surge in college enrollment
and a substantial increase in access to medical care. “Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators,” Sirota
noted, “Chávez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.”
The problems of the Venezuelan economy are certainly real: inflation is high—more than twenty per cent—and so is the
budget deficit, which stands at fifteen per cent of G.D.P. In an attempt to deal with rising prices, the government has
resorted to price controls, which have led to shortages of certain goods. And in an effort to bolster the public finances, it
recently devalued its currency, the bolivar, by a third. (Venezuela gets paid for its oil in dollars, which are now worth
more in bolivars.)
27/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws
Stand your ground laws create chaos and are racially biased they should be repealed.
Benjamin Todd-Jealous, President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
USNEWS.com, August 9, 2013 {Friday “The Law of the Wild West” Retrieved Lexis Nexus}
Yet while "stand your ground" statutes have allowed hundreds of admitted killers to walk free, the race of the victim plays
a major factor in who is acquitted. Another study, published last year by the Urban Institute, found that when white
shooters kill black victims, nearly 36 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable, yet when black shooters
kill white victims, only 3 percent were ruled justifiable. An investigation by the Tampa Bay Times found that in Florida,
defendants claiming "stand your ground" are far more successful if the victim is black. The paper found that 73 percent of
those who killed a black person walked free, versus 59 percent of those who killed a white person. "Stand your ground"
laws allow the perpetrator's perception of fear to determine whether or not deadly force is considered justifiable in the
eyes of a jury. In most cases, the only evidence they have to evaluate is the word of the person who survives. Once you
trade empirical evidence for subjective feelings like trust and empathy, you immediately inject potential bias into a
decision. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder addressed these issues in Orlando, Fla., telling the audience, "It's time
to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."
His sentiments have been seconded by both President Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain. The doctrine of selfdefense was never intended to protect individuals who stalk or pursue victims and then resort to deadly force when their
victims fight back. Chaos is not the goal of justice. All communities will be safer and stronger when "stand your ground"
laws are removed from the books.
Stand your ground laws do not reduce crime or make people safer they do however increase the likelihood of
accidental murder.
Benjamin Todd-Jealous, President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
USNEWS.com, August 9, 2013 {Friday “The Law of the Wild West” Retrieved Lexis Nexus}
Over the last decade, "stand your ground"-style laws have fundamentally redefined the concept of self-defense and
justifiable homicide in the United States. Only now are Americans beginning to understand how these laws threaten
community safety and cohesion. On paper, "stand your ground" laws give individuals the right to use deadly force to
defend themselves without any requirement to retreat from a threat - either real or perceived. George Zimmerman took
this concept to its logical conclusion last year when he notoriously stalked unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in his
gated Florida community. Zimmerman approached Martin, shot him in the heart and yet won an acquittal after arguing the
teenager's attempt to fight back made him fear for his life. The fact is that Zimmerman never needed to claim "stand your
ground" as a defense because Florida's "stand your ground" law had already redefined self-defense in the state: Whoever
lives to walk away, wins. It's the law of the Wild West.
Originally promoted as an expansion of "castle doctrine" laws - which allow the use of deadly force without a duty to
retreat against invaders in one's own home - "stand your ground" operates under the assumption that the whole world is
one's castle and everyone is a potential invader. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out how this can drive
community safety off the rails, and it has. A recent Texas A&M University study took a look at crime in more than 20
states that passed some version of "stand your ground"-type laws from 2000 to 2010. Researchers found no decrease in
crimes like robbery, burglary and aggravated assault, but they did find an 8 percent spike in reported murders and nonnegligent manslaughter.
28/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws
Stand your ground laws may be well intentioned but end up being a license to kill!
Buffalo News July 25, 2013
http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130725/OPINION/130729524/1074
The intent of these laws may have been defensible, in vesting authority with peaceable citizens against those who threaten
them. But in practice, they authorize vigilantism, such as Zimmerman committed, leading to the tragic and unnecessary
death of a teenager. Even some prosecutors are suspicious of the law. Former Broward County prosecutor David Frankel
spoke to the Sun-Sentinal after a different stand-your-ground shooting in Florida last year: “It is an abomination. The
ultimate intent might be good, but in practice, people take the opportunity to shoot first and say later they had a
justification. It almost gives them a free pass to shoot.”
29/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws
Stand your ground laws preserve a fundamental human right to self-defense.
Shane Krauser director of the American Academy for Constitutional Education Western Free Press Aug 2013
{“Stand Your Ground or Run Away and Hide? A Ridiculous Choice!” Retrieved Lexis Nexus}
Stand Your Ground legislation makes it clear that a person can defend himself where he's at when presented with
unjustifiable force. In other words, an innocent victim doesn't have to run away and hide in the face of the criminal
element. Who is it that would advocate that a mother give up her home to a gun-wielding criminal because she 'can safely
do so?' Who would require a young, hardworking man to give up his car to an armed, carjacking thug because he 'can
safely do so?' We have created such a perverse and backward society and to contemplate that we have begun thinking that
this is sensible is repulsive. Stand Your Ground laws have seldom been up for debate. President Obama solidified these
laws when he was a state senator. Former Arizona governor and Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, also
supported the law and made clear that Stand Your Ground legislation protects a 'fundamental right.'
30/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to End Stand Your Ground Laws
This is the wrong forum to try and repeal “stand your ground laws” it must be done in the state legislatures.
The Hill 7-20-13 http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/312317-stand-your-ground-states-not-likely-to-standdown-#ixzz2cNZJ8iV3
Still, without backing from the states, Holder and the administration have fairly little recourse, Winkler said. Rep. Elijah
Cummings (D-Md.), who has a background in law, said that the push to rid the nation of stand your ground laws would be
“very difficult” in Washington and must take place outside of the Beltway.“I don’t think it can be done from here,”
Cummings said. “It’s something that’s going to have to be done by the state legislatures.”
The federal government cannot over turn state stand your ground laws.
The Hill 7-20-13 http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/312317-stand-your-ground-states-not-likely-to-standdown-#ixzz2cNZJ8iV3
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have little if any power to compel states to dial back "stand your
ground" laws the two have criticized in the wake of George Zimmerman's acquittal in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon
Martin. While the Justice Department may review the case and could seek civil rights charges against Zimmerman,
experts say the federal government has little recourse with the stand your ground laws themselves. “There's little the
Department of Justice can do," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told The Hill. "States are allowed to have their own
criminal laws, including self-defense laws,” Winker said. “DOJ may be able to pursue civil rights charges in individual
cases, but it has no authority to overturn state laws.”
31/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana
Legalizing drugs would save the tax payer billions of dollars,
Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior
fellow at the Cato Institute October 2010. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-economic-caselegalizing-drugs
State and federal governments face a daunting fiscal outlook. The national debt stands at 60 percent of GDP, its highest
level since World War II. Under current projections this ratio will rise to more than 75 percent of GDP by 2020 and
continue increasing thereafter. States are also facing severe budget shortfalls. Politicians and the public express concern
about the debt, but standard proposals for expenditure cuts or tax increases garner little support. Understandably,
therefore, some politicians, commentators, interest groups, and citizens have embraced unconventional approaches to
closing fiscal gaps, such as legalizing drugs. Legalization would reduce state and federal deficits by eliminating
expenditure on prohibition enforcement — arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration — and by allowing governments to
collect tax revenue on legalized sales. This potential fiscal windfall is of particular interest because California, which is
facing a budget shortfall of $19.9 billion for fiscal 2011, will vote Nov. 2 on a ballot initiative that would legalize
marijuana under California law. Advocates of the measure have suggested the state could raise billions in annual tax
revenue, in addition to saving criminal-justice expenditure or reallocating this expenditure to more important priorities.
Should the California measure pass and generate the forecasted budgetary savings, other states would likely follow suit.
[T]he budgetary implications of legalization are neither trivial nor overwhelming.” In our recent study, just released by the
Cato Institute, we estimate the impact of legalization on federal, state, and local budgets. The report concludes that drug
legalization would reduce government expenditure about $41.3 billion annually. Roughly $25.7 billion of this savings
would accrue to state and local governments, and roughly $15.6 billion to the federal government. About $8.7 billion of
the savings would result from legalization of marijuana, $20 billion from legalization of cocaine and heroin, and $12.6
billion from legalization of all other drugs.
Legalizing marijuana will not increase its use.
National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws August 2013
http://norml.org/aboutmarijuana/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2
Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years
overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or
affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use. Since 1973, 13 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted
versions of marijuana decriminalization. In each of these states, marijuana users no longer face jail time (nor in most
cases, arrest or criminal records) for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana. Internationally, many states and
nations have enacted similar policies.
32/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana
Marijuana use can have negative side effects however it is safer than other drugs or alcohol & tobacco which are
both legal substances.
SALON.COM NOV 5, 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/
The case for legalizing pot Tomorrow, three states will decide whether or not to end marijuana prohibition. Here's why it's
a no-brainer
Let’s concede that, while among the most innocuous of psychoactive substances, marijuana is not harmless. Its most
common form of ingestion, smoking, introduces crap into the lungs that’s probably not good for you. Other common
negative effects include the impairment of short-term memory, concentration, and coordination as well as increased
appetite (although obesity is less prevalent in users than non-). Pot use seems to have a tenuous link with the onset of
schizophrenia in a small number of teenagers and, more important, can have a deleterious effect on the development of
adolescent brains—an effect that is not reversible upon quitting. And as with alcohol and other substance abuse, some
stoners become so dependent on weed that their habit has serious negative consequences on their own lives and those of
their partners and families. Driving while high, while not nearly as dangerous as driving while drunk, raises serious
concerns. That’s about it, as far as reefer’s risks go. Unlike users of illegal stimulants, such as methamphetamine or
cocaine, marijuana users have little tendency to binge and therefore little likelihood of undergoing loss of control and the
unpredictable, destructive behaviors associated with bingeing—or the miserable post-binge depression or compulsive
cravings. Unlike with opiates, such as heroin or Oxycontin, or barbiturates, there is no danger of fatal overdose or painful
physical withdrawal. Some recent evidence suggests that pot is physically addictive, but the reported withdrawal
symptoms—headaches, irritability, insomnia—are more akin to those associated with not missing your morning joe than
going off smack cold turkey. In addition, pot is less harmful than many prescription medications. Above all, marijuana has
far fewer negative consequences than the nation’s two most popular psychoactive substances, alcohol and tobacco, which
are of course legal for adults. Alcohol abuse and addiction lead to everything from stupidity, being a bore at parties and
otherwise making a fool of yourself to accidents, violence, suicide, DUIs and chronic diseases that kill an estimated
100,000 people a year. Tobacco use, nicotine addiction and secondhand smoke, while not associated with altered states of
consciousness, result in not only the majority of lung cancer cases but in other chronic disease—for a total of 400,000
annuals deaths.
33/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana
Marijuana use is not the problem prohibition is. Prohibition creates a black market and criminalizes millions of
citizens for little gain.
SALON.COM NOV 5, 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/
The case for legalizing pot Tomorrow, three states will decide whether or not to end marijuana prohibition. Here's why it's
a no-brainer
It is not the use of marijuana but its prohibition that causes serious harms. As with booze during Prohibition, the
criminalization of cannabis has spawned black markets, drug trafficking and the violence (and other illegal trade) that
accompanies them. It creates opportunities for the corruption of law enforcement. By imposing heavy burdens of time,
money, and labor on law enforcement and the criminal justice system, the policing and prosecution of people who use or
sell small amounts of herb diverts these resources from violent crimes and other more dangerous activities. It also fails to
collect government revenue raised by the regulation and taxation of the trade—with conservative estimates in the
hundreds of millions a year. The most disturbing consequences of anti-pot laws reside less in the waste of resources than
in the human costs. Prohibition makes criminals out of millions of citizens who pose no danger to persons or property.
The majority of pot smokers never get arrested, but the 850,000 a year who do are saddled with criminal records for the
rest of their lives; they can lose access to state and federal benefits, from public housing to student loans, and to
educational and professional opportunities. We have criminalized more than 10 million people with our pot laws in the
past 20 years.
Marijuana prohibitionists claims that marijuana is a gateway drug and very harmful are exaggerating the negative
impacts of marijuana use.
SALON.COM NOV 5, 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/the_case_for_legalizing_pot/
The case for legalizing pot Tomorrow, three states will decide whether or not to end marijuana prohibition. Here's why it's
a no-brainer
To justify prohibition, most anti-pot advocates claim that marijuana intoxication has no or few benefits; they also
exaggerate—often wildly—the harms. But for those of us who use (or have used) the drug, being stoned can be a good
thing, just like having a beer or two down at the bar with buddies. Public health policymakers tend to ignore the
undeniable fact that people smoke marijuana—and have since 3,000 B.C.—because they find pleasure, creativity, even
spirituality in it. One of the main pillars of anti-pot laws has long been the theory—by now almost completely
debunked—that marijuana is a “gateway drug” to the use of harder drugs. Most studies have shown that tobacco is a far
greater predictor than pot in terms of movement on to more serious drug use. While it is true that cannabis smokers are
more likely than nonusers to do harder drugs, factors including wealth, unemployment status and psychological stress are
more closely correlated to drug progression.
34/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana
Marijuana is a gateway drug that can cause permanent brain damage and other health risks.
Daniel K. Duncan is director of community services for the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse STL
Post Dispatch April 09, 2013 http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/not-so-fast-a-case-against-legalizingmarijuana/article_4b7ffc76-5cab-5569-a101-fbdba63e2c14.html
The research clearly indicates that marijuana is not only addictive (approximately 1 out of 6 youths who smoke marijuana
will develop a dependence) but that the dangers of marijuana are, in fact, far more pronounced in young people than in
adults. Marijuana is unquestionably a gateway to other, more dangerous drug use and, unsurprisingly, recent studies show
regular users of marijuana may suffer a significant and permanent drop in IQ. The other health risks attached to smoked
marijuana (e.g. stroke, cancer, psychosis) are suggested by early research but still unknown.
Alcohol is much safer than marijuana.
Charles D. “Cully” Stimson is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage
Foundation. September 2010 Legal Memorandum #56 on Legal Issues September 13, 2010 Legalizing Marijuana: Why
Citizens Should Just Say No
In fact, compared to alcohol, marijuana is not safe. Long-term, moderate consumption of alcohol carries few health risks
and even offers some significant benefits. For example, a glass of wine (or other alcoholic drink) with dinner actually
improves health.[8] Dozens of peer-reviewed medical studies suggest that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol reduces
the risk of heart disease, strokes, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack.[9] According to the Mayo Clinic,
among many others, moderate use of alcohol (defined as two drinks a day) “seems to offer some health benefits,
particularly for the heart.”[10] Countless articles in medical journals and other scientific literature confirm the positive
health effects of moderate alcohol consumption. The effects of regular marijuana consumption are quite different. For
example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (a division of the National Institutes of Health) has released studies
showing that use of marijuana has wide-ranging negative health effects. Long-term marijuana consumption “impairs the
ability of T-cells in the lungs’ immune system to fight off some infections.”[11] These studies have also found that
marijuana consumption impairs short-term memory, making it difficult to learn and retain information or perform
complex tasks; slows reaction time and impairs motor coordination; increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent, thus
elevating the risk of heart attack; and alters moods, resulting in artificial euphoria, calmness, or (in high doses) anxiety or
paranoia.[12] And it gets worse: Marijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system
damage, brain damage, and stroke.[13]
35/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Legalize Marijuana
Amsterdam is not a case for legalization of marijuana it is one of the most violent cities in Europe.
Charles D. “Cully” Stimson is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage
Foundation. September 2010 Legal Memorandum #56 on Legal Issues September 13, 2010 Legalizing Marijuana: Why
Citizens Should Just Say No
Marijuana advocates often point to the Netherlands as a well-functioning society with a relaxed attitude toward drugs, but
they rarely mention that Amsterdam is one of Europe’s most violent cities. In Amsterdam, officials are in the process of
closing marijuana dispensaries, or “coffee shops,” because of the crime associated with their operation.[26] Furthermore,
the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has expressed “concern about drug and alcohol use among young people
and the social consequences, which range from poor school performance and truancy to serious impairment, including
brain damage.”[27] Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana
statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in
robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase
in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would
likely spark an even more acute increase in crime.
Revenue projections for legalization of marijuana are not correct and full of factual errors.
Charles D. “Cully” Stimson is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage
Foundation. September 2010 Legal Memorandum #56 on Legal Issues September 13, 2010 Legalizing Marijuana: Why
Citizens Should Just Say No
An innovation of the campaign in support of RCTCA is its touting of the potential benefit of legalization to the
government, in terms of additional revenues from taxing marijuana and savings from backing down in the “war on drugs.”
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), for example, claims that legalization “could
yield California taxpayers over $1.2 billion per year” in tax benefits.[39]According to a California NORML Report
updated in October 2009, an excise tax of $50 per ounce would raise about $770 million to $900 million per year and save
over $200 million in law enforcement costs per year.[40] It is worth noting that $900 million equates to 18 million
ounces—enough marijuana for Californians to smoke one billion marijuana cigarettes each year. But these projections are
highly speculative and riddled with unfounded assumptions. Dr. Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, an expert with the RAND
Corporation who has studied the economics of drug policy for over 15 years, has explained that the California “Board of
Equalization’s estimate of $1.4 billion [in] potential revenue for the state is based on a series of assumptions that are in
some instances subject to tremendous uncertainty and in other cases not validated.”[41] She urged the California
Committee on Public Safety to conduct an honest and thorough cost-benefit analysis of the potential revenues and costs
associated with legalizing marijuana. To date, no such realistic cost-benefit analysis has been done.
36/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act
Congress must act quickly to fix the Supreme Courts mistake and reinstate the voting Rights Act.
Congressional Documents and Publications August 6, 2013On 48th Anniversary of Voting Rights Act, Cohen Calls on
Congress to Address Supreme Court Ruling; .
"With the 50th anniversary of the Great March on Washington that led to the Voting Rights Act only weeks away, it is sad
that the Supreme Court has decided to gut some of the law's most important provisions," said Congressman Cohen.
"While the Department of Justice works to ensure that the civil rights protections that remain are fully enforced, Congress
must act quickly to fix the Supreme Court's mistake, return the Voting Rights Act to full strength, and protect the civil and
human rights that we fought for decades to obtain. We cannot just sit and wait for even more discrimination against
minorities to take place; we must do all that we can--as quickly as we can--to prevent it in the first place." The Voting
Rights Act was enacted only after years of those in the civil rights movement marching and in some cases being beaten or
dying in the pursuit of voting rights. For 48 years, the Voting Rights Act has helped secure the right to vote for millions of
Americans. In a 5-4 decision delivered on June 25, the Supreme Court took a step backwards on the Voting Rights Act by
holding that the formula in Section 4 of the Act was unconstitutional and could no longer be used. In striking down
Section 4, the Court put the civil rights of millions of Americans at risk by making enforcement of the Voting Rights Act
more difficult. The Court did, however, leave the door open for Congress to revisit Section 4 and update the coverage
formula to allow for proper enforcement. Congressman Cohen, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, will work to
ensure that the protections of the Voting Rights Act are restored as soon as possible.
We must reinstate the voting rights act immediately to protect voters.
Washington Post August 12, 2013 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/politics/41333638_1_voting-rightsact-voting-system-hillary-rodham-clinton
Clinton criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, urging Congress
to reconsider the 1965 landmark law and calling on citizen activists to mobilize in their communities. She recalled being a
high school senior and watching at home on a black-and-white television set as President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the
legislation. And she reminisced about going to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas seven years later to help Spanish-speaking
residents register to vote. If the Voting Rights Act is not fixed, Clinton warned, “citizens will be disenfranchised,
victimized by the law instead of served by it, and that progress — that historical progress toward a more perfect union —
will go backward instead of forward.” Clinton assailed what she considers an “unseemly rush” to make it harder for
African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities to vote. She noted that this year, more than 80 bills restricting voting
rights have been introduced in 31 states. “We’ve seen a sweeping effort across our country to construct new obstacles to
voting, often undercover and addressing a phantom epidemic of election fraud,” she said.
Immediately after the Voting Rights Act was struck down several states rushed to enact racially discriminatory
anti-voter laws
The Cap Times August 2013
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/lwv-s-fullin-and-rothe-congress-must-restore-votingrights/article_7a7f28ed-7a7e-52c7-ab0a-1110135cfc83.html#ixzz2cOG6c6Pd
Before the ink was even dry on the decision, several states rushed to implement racially discriminatory anti-voter laws —
including several states where the League of Women Voters had previously succeeded in blocking voter restrictions in the
courts and state legislatures. Sadly, this is only the beginning. Without a strong VRA, our ability to fight off anti-voter
legislation and keep our elections free, fair and accessible is significantly weakened
37/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Pro: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act
Congress must fix the Voting Rights Act to protect Americans civil rights, congress must act swiftly.
Donna Brazil Journalist and Democratic Strategist CNN June 26th 2013
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/26/opinion/brazile-voting-rights-act
Today, if President Barack Obama wants to save the Voting Rights Act following Tuesday's shameful Supreme Court
ruling, then he faces an even bigger challenge than Johnson did: He's got to convince a much more hostile Congress that
the act is worth saving. Hanging in the balance is the very foundation of American civil rights law. On Tuesday, nearly 50
years after Johnson's historic speech, the five conservative members of the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights
Act in a single stroke. Why? According to the majority opinion, apparently it's because the discriminatory anti-voter rules
the act prohibits aren't as much of a problem as they were before the law was passed. If you're trying to think up a way to
illustrate how completely nuts that is, don't worry, because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg already put it best in her dissent.
Striking down this essential part of the act, Ginsburg wrote, "is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because
you are not getting wet." Of course, Johnson was right in 1965, and he's just as right today. These protections are vital and
necessary. There is no right more sacrosanct to the very foundations of our nation than the right to vote, and threats to
equal voting loom every time we turn a blind eye. Constant vigilance is required to safeguard it, and for half a century the
Voting Rights Act was a watchful guardian. But now that Section 5's "pre-clearance" formula has been made irrelevant, it
falls to Congress to fix it.
38/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights act was based on old data from 1975 and the Supreme Court only asked congress to look at
recent data to apply the voting rights act rules.
New York Times June 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most
recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determined which states must receive clearance
from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like
moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts. Section 5, which sets out the preclearance
requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970,
seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the
persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on
data from the 1975 reauthorization to decide which states and localities were covered. The current coverage system, Chief
Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.” “Congress — if it
is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current
conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.” The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section
4, the later section is without significance — unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be
covered.
The voting rights act was so successful it is no longer needed.
USA Today August 19, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/19/march-on-washington-votingrights-act/2646695/
When it comes to securing the right to vote, the March on Washington and the many protests it spawned in the South may
have worked too well. Within two years, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of
1965, creating an extraordinary solution to Southern discrimination that consigned some states and municipalities to
federal supervision. But 48 years after that, the Supreme Court noted this summer that the South has, in many ways,
surpassed the North in terms of equality for African Americans. Black turnout exceeded white turnout nationally in the
2012 election, including in most of the states originally covered by the law. "There is no doubt that these improvements
are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act," Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged. "The act has proved
immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process." So successful, in fact, that
Roberts persuaded four of his conservative colleagues to join his opinion declaring the geographic coverage formula
unconstitutional and rendering moot the law's most powerful weapon against voting discrimination.
39/40
Student Congress Starter Set
2013-14
Con: A Resolution to Restore the Voting Rights Act
Much of the voting rights act is still constitutional and the law of the land.
Wall Street Journal June 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578521363840962032.html
The ruling doesn't affect other elements of the Voting Rights Act that prohibit discriminatory voting procedures
nationwide. Both the Justice Department and individual voters can file suit if they believe state or local authorities are in
violation. A Justice Department official said Tuesday that as of last week, 276 requests were pending from states under
the so-called preclearance regime. The 30 or so employees who currently process such applications would be reassigned
to enforce other federal election laws, the official said
40/40